P PADMANABHAN Vs. CHENNAI PORT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed against the order of the third respondent dated 14.06.2007 and the enquiry report of the fourth respondent.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he was appointed in the respondent Port Trust as a Tracer with effect from 10.09.1982 under the quota reserved for Scheduled Tribes. His name was sponsored by the employment exchange. At the time of his appointment, he has produced the community certificate in original issued by the competent authority viz., Tahsildar, Salem Taluk. His services were subsequently confirmed and he was promoted as a Supervisor Grade II and again he was promoted as a Supervisor Grade I with effect from 24.10.1988 and subsequently, promoted as an Assistant Engineer. In 1987, when the second respondent has called the petitioner to produce the community certificate and the petitioner appeared before the concerned Department in person and explained that he has produced the original community certificate at the time of his appointment but the second respondent issued a memo dated 17.02.1999 framing charge to the effect that the petitioner has failed to submit original community certificate. THE petitioner has submitted his explanation on 02.03.1999 stating that even at the time of entry into service, he has produced the original community certificate. In spite of the said explanation, further memo was given by the second respondent on 31.05.1999, directing the petitioner to produce the community certificate. Aggrieved by the said communication, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.10587 of 1999 and there was an order of interim stay granted by this Court initially. Since the order was not extended subsequently, the third respondent has directed an enquiry as per his communication dated 15.07.2004. It was challenging the said communication, the petitioner has filed another writ petition and also obtained an order of interim stay initially, which was subsequently vacated and the appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the First Bench of this Court. In the meanwhile, the fourth respondent has commenced enquiry, wherein the petitioner has appeared and produced the acknowledgment given by the then Superintendent for receipt of community certificate. It is the case of the petitioner that the enquiry officer has come to the conclusion that the charges are proved based on the ground that the Presenting Officer could not trace the original community certificate from the office records. THE third respondent based on the enquiry officer's report, has given a impugned direction dated 14.06.2007 to the petitioner to give his written explanation. It is the said direction by the third respondent, which is under challenge in this writ petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that when it is the consistent case of the petitioner that the community certificate has been produced at the time of entry into service, it is false on the part of the respondents to say now that only true copy was produced at that time. He has also submitted that normally with a true copy, no employer will appoint anybody and therefore, the enquiry is vitiated.