S DAYALAN Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appeals), Labour Welfare Building, Chennai-6, the first respondent herein, dated 11. 6. 1999 passed in T. S. E. Case No. 26/97 confirming the order of the third respondent dated 17. 2. 1992 dismissing the petitioner from service and also to direct the third respondent to restore the petitioner to the post of Branch Manager to pay all the attendant and other benefits.

(2.) THE petitioner was initially appointed as a Clerk in the year 1967 by the President of the Sriperumbudur Taluk Co-operative Marketing Society and has been working there for the past 28 years. He was then appointed as a Branch Manager by the Special Officer of Sriperumbudur Taluk Co-operative Marketing Society and was paid the last drawn wages of Rs. 1900/ -. The second respondent, Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies issued a notice dated 4. 12. 1989 to the petitioner asking explanation regarding recovery of a sum of Rs. 23,971. 53 and the petitioner has also submitted his explanation on 13. 12. 1990 and the said notice was issued after the lapse of six years from the date of alleged conduct of the petitioner. Even though the petitioner has requested for certain documents, ultimately, the second respondent, by order dated 3. 12. 1990 has directed the petitioner to pay the amount. It was, aggrieved against the said order of the second respondent, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Special Tribunal for Co-operative Societies Cases and the order of the second respondent was stayed and finally, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the 2nd respondent for fresh disposal.

(3.) IN the meantime, the Special Officer has initiated disciplinary proceedings separately against the petitioner on the same cause of action which was the subject matter of the proceedings of the second respondent dated 3. 12. 1990, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 23,971. 53. The Special Officer has also issued two charge sheets on 25. 6. 1990 and 7. 8. 1991 and initiated domestic enquiry against the petitioner. The petitioner has also submitted his explanation, based on which the third respondent has decided to hold a domestic enquiry. Thiru A. Muthukrishnan was appointed as the Enquiry Officer and the enquiry was commenced on 13. 9. 1991. However, the petitioner was not given any notice. The petitioner understands that on 25. 9. 1991, in the enquiry, the Presenting Officer was examined as M. W. 1, apart from other staffs examined as M. W. 2 to M. W. 6. The petitioner was not informed of the enquiry proceedings held on 25. 9. 1991, but the enquiry officer directed the respondents to furnish copies of Exhibits M9, 11, 12, 13 and 33 to 38, which were furnished on 25. 1. 1992 and thereafter the enquiry was adjourned without any specific date.