D GANESAN Vs. SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER seeks writ of certiorari to quash the order of the 2nd Respondent dated 12. 05. 2004, confirming the order of the 1st Respondent dated 28. 10. 2003, imposing punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect.

(2.) BRIEF facts which lead to the filing of writ petition are as follows: (i) The Petitioner was working as Movement Assistant at Tondiarpet godown in the Respondent Corporation to move the essential commodities to the Corporation retail shops. During the course of surprise inspection on 21. 02. 1997, checking DVAC officials noticed Sugumar, assistant giving a sum or Rs. 1950/- to the Petitioner. Enquiry revealed that the Petitioner and others removed 15 bags of rice and sold to Krishnamoorthy for Rs. 6000/- and received amount from the said Krishnamoorthy. The charge against the Petitioner is that from out of this said amount from Krishnamoorthy, petitioner received Rs. 1950/ -. (ii) Based on the confidential report of DVAC three charges have been framed against the Petitioner. Since there was a clerical error in the charge memo A17/18403/99 dated 13. 08. 1999, the clerical error was corrected and revised charge memo was issued to the Petitioner in charge memo No. A17/18403/99 dated 28. 02. 2002. Senior Manager Accounts was appointed as enquiry officer by the proceedings dated 21. 06. 2002. The Petitioner submitted a reply/written explanation to the enquiry officer on 19. 07. 2002. The enquiry officer has submitted his report dated 06. 11. 2002, holding the charges against the Petitioner proved.

(3.) THE 1st Respondent in his memo Rc. No. A17/10403/99 dated 31. 01. 2003, calling upon the Petitioner to offer explanation to the findings of the enquiry officer. The Petitioner has submitted his written submission to the 1st Respondent on 15. 09. 2003 in person. Not being satisfied with the explanation, the 1st Respondent passed the order imposing penalty of withholding increment for two years with cumulative effect. Aggrieved against the same Petitioner has preferred appeal before the 2nd Respondent. By the impugned order dated 20. 05. 2004, the 2nd Respondent has dismissed the appeal. Petitioner challenges the impugned order on the ground that there was violation of service regulation of TNCS Service Rules in conducting the enquiry. The Respondent assails the impugned order on the ground that the Respondents have failed to consider the explanation of the Petitioner and the order is wholly perverse and un reasonable.