T DHANDAPANI Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was formerly working as the Supervisor of TASMAC Shop No. 5019 in Karur District. On 19.12.2009, the District Manager of TASMAC made a surprise inspection of the said shop. During such inspection, it is alleged that the petitioner was found selling liquors by mixing water. It is also alleged that though there was no bar attached to the said shop, there were water packets and tumblers indicating that the petitioner was making retail sale of liquors in the shop. Based on the said inspection, the District Manager by his proceedings in Na. Ka. C.V. 2/6026/2009, dated 29.01.2010, issued a charge memorandum to the petitioner containing as many as two charges, as indicated above. The petitioner denied the said charges. Not having been satisfied with the same, an enquiry was ordered. Enquiry was held, in which the petitioner participated. The Enquiry Officer finally submitted his report holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. Based on the same, the 3rd respondent by his proceedings in Na. Ka. C.V. 2/6026/2009/02, dated 12.03.2010, dismissed the petitioner from service. As against the same, the petitioner filed an appeal to the 2nd respondent on 21.04.2010. The 2nd respondent, in turn, by his proceedings in Se. Mu. Na. Ka. No. 1842/2010/E, dated 01.12.2010, dismissed the said appeal. As against the same, the petitioner preferred a Revision to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent, in turn, by his proceedings in Na. Ka. No. 289/R1/2011, dated 02.07.2011, dismissed the same. The petitioner is aggrieved by the same and that is how he is before this Court with this writ petition.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and I have also perused the records, carefully.

(3.) Though several grounds have been raised in the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner would focus his arguments mainly on two grounds. The first ground is that the enquiry officer's report had gone beyond the scope of the charges framed, inasmuch as the enquiry officer held that there was excess amount found in the shop, though, according to the learned counsel, there was no charge relating to the same. The learned counsel would further point out that the impugned order of dismissal is based on the said finding of the excess amount in the shop, as well. This, according to the learned counsel, is illegal. Secondly, the learned counsel would submit that the enquiry officer found that the liquors which were kept for sale in the shop was adulterated. This conclusion was based on the report submitted by the Forensic Lab. But, according to the learned counsel, the said report was neither exhibited in the enquiry nor a copy of the same was furnished to the petitioner. Thus, the finding based on a document which is not before the enquiry officer is illegal and therefore the enquiry officer's report ought not to have been relied on by the disciplinary authority as well as other authorities, the learned counsel contended.