S TAMILJESELVAN Vs. REGISTRAR TAMILNADU CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in the writ petition was working as an X-ray Technician in Jawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate, Medical Education and Research, pondicherry. On the basis of a complaint given by one Amudha dated 10. 7. 1995, the third respondent in the writ petition, issued a charge memo to the petitioner. The sum and substance of the memo read that:

(2.) BY order dated 16. 9. 1997, the third respondent dismissed the petitioner from Government service with immediate effect. Aggrieved of the order of dismissal, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Director general of Health Services, the second respondent herein. By order dated 19. 6. 2002, the order of dismissal was confirmed and the appeal dismissed. Aggrieved of the same, the petitioner filed an Original Application in o. A. No. 651 of 2002 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench. The said O. A. was dismissed by order dated 10th June 2003. The contention of the petitioner before the Tribunal rested on the footing that the charges were based mainly on the complaint given by the said Amudha, who was not examined by the prosecution at all; that the findings of the authorities had no basis when the complaint dated 10. 7. 1995 was withdrawn by the said Amudha even within a few hours of the complaint and the said withdrawal letter was once again reiterated in her reply dated 20. 7. 1995; the order was passed on irrelevant evidence produced by the prosecution; in the circumstances, the charges rested merely on surmises and assumptions; that if the complaint dated 10. 7. 1995 could be acted upon for initiating action, then the other letters dated 10. 7. 1995 and 20. 7. 1995 ought to have been given due credence to drop action. The contention of the petitioner before the Central Administrative tribunal was countered by the respondents that the petitioner did call the said complainant Amudha on 9. 7. 1995 on a sunday for taking X-ray again for which he could not adduce proper and satisfactory reasons; that the disciplinary action was taken after going through the entire records and there was strong reason to believe that the petitioner had prepared the withdrawal letter from the said Amudha and also used pressure on the said Amudha to see that she did not attend the preliminary enquiry on 10. 7. 1995; that the Fact finding Authority had correctly arrived at the conclusion after going through the relevant facts and circumstances. The Tribunal analysed the various facts an d ultimately rejected the prayer of the petitioner to quash the order of dismissal.

(3.) MR. VIJAY Narayan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, took us through the enquiry conducted in detail to impress on the fact that in the context of the withdrawal letter and the nonexamination of the complainant, there was absolutely no evidence to proceed against the petitioner for a serious consequence. Learned senior counsel further pointed out that there was no direct evidence for proceeding against the petitioner; that the presence of the petitioner on a holiday to accommodate a co-worker should not be viewed with a suspicion to draw an adverse inference against this petitioner. Learned senior counsel also placed reliance on the decision reported in 2005 (4) CTC 202 in the case of ERAJAN,p. Vs. THE DEPUTY inspector GENERAL OF POLICE and (1999) 8 SCC 582 in the case of HARDWARILAL vs. STATE OF U. P. AND OTHERS to support the contention that non-examination of a material witness made the charge baseless. Such denial of request to examine the witness would be in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the findings of the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority are not sustainable in law.