R SHANMUGHAM Vs. TAMILNADU WAREHOUSING CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal is directed against the order of learned single Judge, dismissing the appellant's writ petition (Writ Petition No. 7993 of 1995, dated 21 July 1995). The appellant was working as Warehouse Manager in the respondent Corporation at Arani during the period between 8 April 1993 and 22 July 1993. Thereafter he was transferred to Polinaickenpettai Warehouse, Tuticorin. On 13 September 1993, he was served with a charge memorandum alleging discrepancies in the issue of cement stock at Arani Warehouse, in as much as there were variations of specimen signatures in the delivery orders and release order, etc. The said charge memorandum was issued under Regulation 12 of Tamil Nadu Warehousing Corporation General and Staff Regulations, 1965. It in not necessary to refer to the other facts, but suffice it to say that an order of suspension was made against him in R.C. No. 14541/K4/93, dated 15 December 1993 pending enquiry into the charges. He challenged the said order of suspension by filing Writ Petition No. 939 of 1994, which was dismissed on 21 April 1994. In spite of the dismissal of the said writ petition, the order of suspension, dated 15 December, 1993, by order, dated 7 June 1994 was revoked and thereafter, he was transferred and posted to work as Superintendent, Technical Section, Head Office at Madras.

(2.) THE enquiry had not been commenced for some time. He submitted his explanation to the said charge memorandum, denying the charges levelled against him. By proceedings, dated 1 June 1995, the respondent appointed an enquiry officer to conduct an oral enquiry into the charges. Simultaneously by proceeding R.C. No. 00579/95/K4, dated 1 June 1995, the respondent suspended him from service pending enquiry unto the charges. It is the said order of suspension, which was challenged in the writ petition, out of which, the present with appeal arises.

(3.) THIS writ appeal, has to be allowed on a very short ground. We find that regulation 14(4) of the relevant Regulations provides that the employees may be placed under suspension pending enquiry on grave charges, where such suspension is necessary in the interest of the Corporation or for facilitating enquiry into charges and that the reasons for such suspension should be recorded in detail. (emphasis is ours). The order, dated 1 June 1995, suspending the appellant reads in so far as it is relevant as follows :