P. RADHA KRISHNAN Vs. THE STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to conduct enquiry and to investigate on the allegations made out in the petitioner's representation dated 26.3.2015 by following the guidelines issued in Lalitha Kumari Vs. State of U.P case reported in : 2014 (2) SCC 1.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Supervisor(Civil) on 02.12.1994 in the Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited, Alangulam Works (for short 'TANCEM') which is a Government undertaking. While so, there were a number of illegalities were committed by the fourth respondent and other officials and thereby they caused numerous loses to the Corporation. After collecting evidence against those erring officials, the petitioner sent it to the higher authorities. Due to which, it is alleged that he was suspended from service with malice attitude followed by a charge memo. Challenging the same, the petitioner has preferred a Writ Petition, which is pending before this Court.

(3.) THE fourth respondent has filed a counter affidavit inter alia stating that since the request of the petitioner to give retrospective promotion to the petitioner was not given effect to, he has made baseless allegations with an ulterior motive and with personal vendetta not only against the fourth respondent but also his higher officials also. Further, it is alleged that the petitioner during working hours had consumed alcohol resulting in suspending the petitioner. The petitioner has filed various Writ Petitions against the Management without any rhyme or reason. Though adequate opportunity was given to the petitioner on 13.05.2015 and 18.05.2015, the petitioner did not attend the enquiry with a view to prolong the issue for ever. Hence, the Enquiry Officer by concluding the domestic enquiry had submitted his findings to the disciplinary authority, who in turn, had also accepted the said findings. Based on the findings of the enquiry, the fourth respondent was allowed to retire with all attendant benefits. Eventually, he prayed for the dismissal of this Writ Petition.