V KAMALAKARAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsels appearing for the parties.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows:- THE petitioner was an Office Assistant in the Revenue department, subsequently renamed as Mechanical Engineering Department of chennai Corporation. THE petitioner was placed under suspension on 11. 8. 1983 on the allegation that he had received a sum of Rs. 403. 75 from one Govindasamy, who had came to the Treasury for remittance of licence fee on behalf of his friend P. S. Karthikeyan and had prepared a bogus challan and issued the same to the person concerned. Prosecution was launched under the Indian Penal Code. However, the criminal trial ended in acquittal and thereafter the petitioner, who had remained under suspension, was reinstated in service on 30. 4. 1999. At that stage, the Corporation, however, decided to initiate departmental proceedings against the petitioner and a domestic enquiry was held. THE Enquiry officer gave finding that all the three charges against the petitioner had not been proved. THEreafter, the disciplinary authority served a notice dated 5. 12. 2000. In such notice, inter alia it is stated:- ". . . Hence, in order to arrive at a final decision on the basis of the offence under Bye Law 9 (2) of the Chennai Corporation third and fourth grade service (Discipline and Appeal) Byelaws, a copy of the Enquiry report is hereby forwarded to the delinquent. In respect of the Enquiry Report, if any appeal is to be submitted in writing the same should be submitted within 15 days from the date of receipt of this Memo. Further it is hereby instructed that such appeal should be only on the basis of evidence offered at the time of the Enquiry. If the appeal in writing is not submitted within the stipulated time it is hereby informed that final orders will be passed in this regard on the basis of the Documents available. "

(3.) IN the present case, admittedly, even though a copy of the report was given, the petitioner was never called upon to show cause as to why the enquiry report should not be rejected nor the disciplinary authority gave any inkling about any prima facie disagreement with the conclusion and, therefore, the petitioner had no occasion to have his say in the matter.