S MAHADEVAN Vs. REGIONAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner back to service regularizing the period of the absence with retrospective effect as on duty and direct the payment of backwages till the date of reinstatement with interest at the rate of 24% and award compensation for the agony and misery caused to him due to the arbitrary conduct of the Respondents and award costs.)Petitioner seeks Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner back to service, regularizing the period of absence with retrospective effect as 'on duty' and direct payment of back wages till the date of reinstatement with interest at the rate of 24% p. a.

(2.) BRIEF facts which led to the filing of Writ Petition are as follows:- (i) Petitioner was appointed as Assistant (Typist on13. 1. 1986 ). Petitioner along with his family members are alleged to have collected deposit from the public and failed to repay the amount on demand, which resulted in filing of criminal case against the Petitioner and his family members under Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors Act. (ii) Petitioner had been proceeded with departmental action by a Charge Memo dated 19. 11. 1999 for the misconduct ? (i) that he was unauthorisedly absent for 89 days from 23. 8. 1999 till the date of charge sheet and thereby causing dislocation to the smooth functioning of the office; (ii) that the Petitioner collected money from the retired employees/public towards term deposit for the financial company established in the name of family members and failed to repay the same on demand and involved in a fraudulent activities. (iii) One Kamalakumar was appointed as Enquiry Officer and various communications relating to the proceedings had been sent by registered post to the address in the Service record of the Petitioner. Those communications had been returned unserved. Petitioner was set exparte and proceedings were held on various dates. Witnesses and documents were examined during the hearing. Enquiry Officer has submitted his report on 20. 9. 2001. Enquiry Officer held that both the charges of unauthorized absence and Petitioner's involvement in collection of money were proved. After issuing second show cause notice, punishment of removal from service vide order dated 15. 11. 2001 was imposed. (iv) Case of the Petitioner is that no communication was sent to him either preliminary or other regular hearings and the entire proceedings are vitiated due to violation of principles of natural justice. Enquiry proceedings is also vitiated on account of non-payment of subsistence allowance to the Petitioner. Order of suspension was not at all served upon the Petitioner and violation of principles of natural justice would vitiate the entire proceedings.

(3.) RESPONDENTS have filed counter stating that Petitioner had been given adequate opportunities to defend his case at each and every stage of proceedings of enquiry and even after several communications, Petitioner did not choose to appear. Further, according to the Respondents, order of removal from service is not arbitrary, but only bonafide, commensurate with the charges levelled against the Petitioner.