S.L. HEMALATHA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the impugned show cause notice issued by the first respondent in No.26947/E1/2008-6, Labour and Employment (E1) Department dated 24.02.2009, the impugned charge memo issued by the second respondent in No.E2/43202/2004 dated 11.04.2005 and also the impugned suspension order issued by the first respondent in G.O.(D) No.595 Labour and Employment Department dated 22.04.2005, to quash the same and pass appropriate orders.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was issued with the charge memo dated 11.4.2005 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules containing the following five charges:-

(3.) When the matter stood as above, the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories (Testing and Safety), Tirunelveli lodged a criminal complaint before the City Crime Branch Police Station, Tirunelveli and a case was registered in Crime No.19 of 2005 against the petitioner under Sections 465, 467, 471, 472, 477A and 409 of IPC. However, when the petitioner was not furnished with the supportive documents to answer the charges, she filed Writ Petition No.29973 of 2005 praying for furnishing of the relevant documents as requested by her in the letters dated 22.4.2005 and 2.5.2005. This Court, disposing off the said writ petition by order dated 16.9.2005, directed the respondents to furnish the documents. Challenging the said order, the respondents filed Writ Appeal No.2061 of 2005 and the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 19.10.2005, dismissed the writ appeal. Only thereafter, the respondents had furnished the copies of some of the available documents to the petitioner. Subsequently, by a detailed order dated 27.4.2006 passed in W.P.(MD) No.3953 of 2005, this Court directed the respondents to furnish the xerox copies of the nine vital documents within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of the order and after receiving the said xerox copies, the petitioner was also directed to give her explanation within 15 days and after receipt of the said documents and explanation given by the petitioner, the enquiry officer was further directed to complete the enquiry after giving due opportunity to the petitioner. It is at this point of time the learned counsel for the petitioner, arguing further, stated that in spite of the direction given by this Court on 27.4.2006 to furnish nine documents, some of the documents were not even furnished. Before complying with the direction given by this Court in W.P.(MD) No.3953 of 2005 dated 27.4.2006, the enquiry officer was appointed and the enquiry officer also had completed the enquiry. Therefore, the enquiry initiated by the enquiry officer cannot be given any sanctity, since the enquiry initiated and completed, without complying with the direction given by this Court, is not only unfair and unreasonable, but also violative of the principles of the natural justice. Adding further, it was stated that unless the nine documents directed to be given by this Court were given to the petitioner, it would be highly impossible for the petitioner to participate in the enquiry to defend the charges. Since all the documents were not given to the petitioner, admittedly, by the respondents, it goes without saying that the petitioner had not been given proper opportunity and the enquiry officer also, even after receipt of the representation from the petitioner to furnish all the documents including the original for comparison with the xerox copies, has deliberately given a false statement that he has rejected her request. That shows that the enquiry officer has also acted with a mala fide intention.