L SAVARIRAJ Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is listed today for admission and I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Corporation.

(2.) THE petitioner has come forward with this writ petition praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner, K. Abisekhapuram Division, Tiruchirapalli, the second respondent herein made in Na.Ka.No.C3/6220/2002 (Maiyam) in Na.Da.La.dated 30-05-2005 quash the same and direct the respondents herein to permit the petitioner to continue as watchman in the existing post with all his service and monetary benefits.

(3.) IN view of the fact that the enquiry officer/ the second respondent has concluded the enquiry, without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses, and filed the report, the impugned order is setaside. The matter is remanded back to the second respondent to conduct enquiry from the stage where the petitioner sought permission to cross-examine the witnesses of the establishment/corporation and also permit him to examine his witnesses if any. The petitioner is also directed to co-operate for completion of the enquiry and the enquiry officer is further directed to complete the enquiry and submit his report to the first respondent within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.