K GOPALAKRISHNAN Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR, TASMAC LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief:

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he was working as Salesman in one of the retail vending shops of TASMAC in Ponnai Village. While holding the post as Salesman, he was also directed to take additional charge of another retail outlet of the TASMAC shop located in Sholinghur. While the petitioner was holding the additional charge at Sholinghur, an inspection was conducted by the third respondent and it was found that ten bottles of liquor were adulterated and the same was sold in loose quantities. The charge against the petitioner was that he sold the liquor unauthorisedly in loose quantities. He was therefore placed under suspension on 22.12.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner was chargesheeted on 17.04.2011 alleging that he was selling inferior quality of liquor and allowed to run a bar unauthorisedly by some third party, which fact was not disclosed by the petitioner to the higher officials. Simultaneously, the termination order was also issued along with the charge sheet.

(3.) In the said circumstances, the petitioner filed an appeal before the second respondent and the second respondent vide proceedings dated 22.09.2011 set aside the order of the third respondent and remanded the matter to the third respondent for framing fresh charge and conducting a domestic enquiry into the allegations. After the remand, a fresh charge sheet was issued on 08.11.2011 on the same lines as that of the earlier one and no specific allegations had been mentioned nor list of witnesses and exhibits were shown in the charge sheet. Thereafter, a domestic enquiry was conducted into the charges and no proper opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend his case effectively. The said enquiry officer merely obtained his statement. According to the petitioner, no witnesses were examined and no exhibits were marked in the enquiry in support of the charges. It is the case of the petitioner that he denied the charges, but however, deposed before the enquiry officer that in future, he would be careful to inform the higher officials in case of any unauthorised activity is noticed in the running of the shop. On the basis of the statement made by the petitioner, the enquiry officer seemed to have submitted a report on 28.12.2011 holding neither the charges proved nor disproved. However, strangely, the enquiry officer, in the report, recommended for reinstatement of the petitioner in terms of the Regulations of the Corporation.