C. JAGAN Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was formerly a Salesman, attached to TASMAC Shop No.11255 at Sembedu, Gudiyatham, Vellore District. The District Manager, TASMAC Vellore/the third respondent herein, conducted surprise inspection in the said shop, on 10.12.2010 and found certain irregularities. Therefore, the petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from 13.12.2010. Thereafter, the District Manager issued a memo by his proceedings, in Na.Ka.No.A2/1225/CV/2010, dated 10.01.2011, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service for the above stated alleged irregularities. The petitioner submitted his explanation. Thereafter, the District Manager, by his proceedings, in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.A2/1225/CV/2011, dated 22.06.2011, passed an order dismissing the petitioner from service. This order came to be passed even without holding any enquiry. As against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal to the Senior Regional Manager, the second respondent herein. In the said appeal memorandum, the petitioner had specifically contended that there were no charges framed, no enquiry held, no opportunity afforded and the order of dismissal came to be passed in an arbitrary manner. Without considering all his objections, the second respondent, namely, the Senior Regional Manager, by his proceedings in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.864/2011/E, dated 22.09.2011, confirmed the order of dismissal. As against the same, the petitioner filed a revision to the Managing Director, namely, the first respondent herein. Since the said revision was not considered, the petitioner was forced to file a writ petition in W.P.No.16412 of 2012, seeking appropriate direction to the first respondent to dispose of the revision within a time frame. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court, by order dated 28.06.2012, by which, this Court issued a direction to the first respondent to dispose of the revision petition filed by the petitioner on 11.10.2011 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. In pursuance of the same, the first respondent, by his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.9692/R1/2011, dated 15.11.2012, dismissed the revision, thereby confirming the order of dismissal.

(2.) Challenging the above orders, the petitioner filed yet another writ petition in W.P.No.32705 of 2012. In that writ petition, this Court found that the dismissal order was arbitrary inasmuch as the same came to be passed without affording any opportunity to the petitioner and without holding proper enquiry. Accordingly, this Court, by order dated 25.7.2013, set aside the said order, however, this Court remanded the matter back to the third respondent herein for passing appropriate orders, after holding proper enquiry by appointing an Enquiry Officer.

(3.) After the said order, it appears that by his proceedings, in Na.Ka.No.A2/1225/CV/2010, dated 24.09.2013, the third respondent appointed the Godown Manager as Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer called the petitioner and recorded his statement. Based on the same, he submitted his report on 31.10.2013, holding the petitioner guilty of the above allegations. Based on the same, the third respondent has now passed the impugned order, in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.A2/1225/CV/2013, dated 27.11.2013, dismissing the petitioner from service. Challenging the said order, the petitioner is before this Court with this writ petition.