A SARAVANAN Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the arguments of Ms. K. Parameshwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Dhonti Reddy for Mr. R.S. Jeevarathinam, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and perused the records.

(2.) THE petitioner was working as Mazdoor in the Civil Division (Conservancy) of the Madras Port Trust. He was placed under suspension on 18.3.1983 along with another Mazdoor belonging to traffic Department, by name, V. Mohan. On 11.4.1983, he was given a charge memorandum alleging that he was in possession of T.V. tubes stolen from a container.

(3.) BEFORE the Industrial Tribunal, on the side of the petitioner, seven documents were filed and they were marked as Exs. W.1 to W.7 and on the side of the second respondent Port Trust, 22 documents were filed and they were marked as Exs. M.1 to M.22. While on the side of the petitioner, he examined himself as W.W. 1, on the side of the second respondent, two witnesses were examined, viz., M.W.1 and M.W.2. The Industrial Tribunal, on an analysis of evidence before it, came to the conclusion that the enquiry held against the petitioner was fair and proper. It rejected the argument of the petitioner that there was no Presenting officer in the enquiry and the Enquiry Officer himself put questions to elicit answers. The Tribunal held that the Enquiry Officer seeking certain clarifications from the witnesses, was not improper and there was no necessity to appoint any Presenting Officer in an enquiry. On the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Tribunal held that the findings were supported by evidence. It also held that the objection by the petitioner that the enquiry report was not furnished along with the second show cause notice, was an after-thought.