COMMISSIONER COIMBATORE CORPORATION Vs. A THANGAVELU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single judge dated November 18, 2004. We have heard Mr. G. Masilamani, learned senior counsel for the appellant, Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned senior counsel for the first respondent in W. A. No. 61 of 2005 and Mr. Vijay Narayan, learned senior counsel for the first respondent in W. A. No. 62 of 2005.

(2.) THE first respondent was a Town planning Inspector in the services of the appellant Municipal Corporation. He was charge sheeted on December 13, 1997. The charge against the first respondent (writ petitioner) was that the Town Planning inspector and Assistant Town Planning Officer (incharge) demanded Rs. 50,000 from the agent of Thiru Radhakrishnan and Soundarajothi for approval of lay-out in Vilankruchi village. It appears that on that charge an enquiry officer was appointed, who submitted a report dated february 19, 1998. The writ petitioner filed an application to the Commissioner of Coimbatore corporation dated May 25, 1998 alleging that the enquiry officer has not examined even a single witness and has submitted his report unilaterally and he prayed that the commissioner should direct the enquiry officer to examine the seven witnesses referred to by him in his presence and permit him to submit his defense explanation. Thereafter it appears that the Commissioner, Coimbatore corporation by order dated August 18, 1998 suspended the writ petitioner pending enquiry.

(3.) IN the affidavit of the writ petitioner in w. P. No. 35667 of 2002 it is stated that the enquiry officer recorded the depositions of prosecution witnesses behind the back of the petitioner and did not even furnish a copy of the recorded depositions to the petitioner till july 16, 1999. However, in ground (T) it is mentioned that the enquiry officer in his second report has stated that on July 16, 1999 copies of all documents relating to the charge memo were furnished to the delinquent officer and he has cross examined all the witnesses.