LAWS(MAD)-2007-6-186

K JAYAKODI Vs. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED

Decided On June 11, 2007
K. JAYAKODI Appellant
V/S
CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM, BHARAT SANCHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was appointed as Mazdoor on 06. 03. 1982. He was promoted as Lineman on 18. 10. 1984 and was later made as store Lineman with effect from 1993. While functioning as Store Lineman, he was served with a Memo on 29. 02. 1996 by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Telecom, asking for his explanation for the shortage of items in stores. By reply-dated 05. 03. 1996, the petitioner denied the contents of the memo. On 06. 03. 1996, he was placed under suspension. On 15. 07. 1996, a Charge Memo was served on him, regarding misappropriation of stores. An Inquiry Officer was appointed to inquire into the charges and, by a report, dated 14. 03. 2002 , the Inquiry Officer found all the three charges levelled against the petitioner, as proved.

(2.) BASED on the report of the Inquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority, namely, third respondent herein imposed an order of dismissal from service on 23. 04. 2002, which was confirmed in appeal by the second respondent on 21. 06. 2002. Thereafter, in the revision petition, dated 15. 07. 2002, preferred by the petitioner to the first respondent, the order of dismissal was modified into one of compulsory retirement, vide order-dated 02. 04. 2004.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner would contend that though the petitioner had sought for certain documents to substantiate his claim, they were not afforded to the petitioner and mere production of certain documents does not amount to proof and the same has to be proved by witnesses, which is not done in this case. The learned counsel would further contend that though the petitioner requested the Inquiry Officer to permit him to examine the three additional witnesses, the same was rejected and he was not given a reasonable opportunity, which is violative of the principles of natural justice, and he was made a scapegoat to save the skin of his superiors, and, therefore, the orders impugned are liable to be quashed.