R. SUKUMARAN Vs. CHAIRMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against an order of dismissal of the petitioner from the post of Warehouse Manager Grade II of the respondent-Corporation by order dated 13.12.1989.

(2.) The facts are : On certain allegations made against the petitioner, disciplinary proceeding were initiated and four charges were framed against the petitioner as follows:-

(3.) The petitioner alleges in the affidavit that he was not given a reasonable opportunity inasmuch as he has not been furnished with a copy of preliminary report. The petitioner further alleges that the order of punishment is based mainly on the report of one Thiru K. Eswaran, who conducted the enquiry in total disregard to the principles of natural justice and as such the impugned order is laible to be set aside. It is also alleged that the unusual lengthy preamble would show that the enquiry officer was greatly influenced by unwarranted and extraneous matters. It is further stated that the procedure adopted by the enquiry officer to conclude the enquiry by treating the enquiry as closed even before the examination of defence witnesses had prejudiced the petitioner, though it was set aside later by this Court. It has also alleged that the enquiry report itself has been written in such a way to create prejudice in the mind of the disciplinary authority against the petitioner paving the way for imposition of extreme punishment provided under the Rules. It is also alleged that the enquiry officer has stated unnecessarily that the petitioner had tried to stall the enquiry and that it has been adjourned many times and that this would show that the enquiry officer has considered extraneous considerations in arriving at a conclusion. The petitioner alleges that a special reference made by the enquiry officer to the position and conduct of the petitioner's wife and the alleged second wife subsequently examined as defence witnesses, is quite unwarranted. It is also alleged that the long delay in concluding the enquiry cannot be attributed to the petitioner alone. It is also pointed out that had the enquiry officer been changed at the request of the petitioner, the enquiry would have ended long back. It is also alleged that calling upon the defence witnesses before the conclusion of prosecution witnesses is a clear violation of practice and procedure adopted in disciplinary proceedings and that inasmuch as the petitioner has been asked to give a list of defence witnesses would amount to violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner further alleges in the affidavit that the delay in making available the depositions of prosecution witnesses to the petitioner is fatal and that it offends the principles of natural justice. It is also alleged in the affidavit and the findings of the enquiry officer on charge numbers 3 and 4 is perverse and based on no evidence. It is also alleged that for the offence of bigamy the question of marriage must be strictly proved, that any inference could not be sufficient to prove the factum of marriage and that in the absence of any reliable evidence, it should be held that charge No. 3 is not proved. So also that petitioner alleges that charges 1, 2 and 4 are also not proved. The petitioner also alleges in the affidavit that the entire enquiry was vitiated for want of prosecution of the witnesses before the enquiry. It is also alleged that the punishment inflicted is disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct and violated Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. It is also alleged that there is no complaint in the performance of official duties and that the impugned order is bad in law. With these allegations, the petitioner has come up before this Court.