S UDAYAKUMAR Vs. TAMILNADU WAREHOUSING CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks to challenge the order of the first respondent dated 31.12.2002 in proceedings No.Na.Ka.1423/02/K3, dismissing the petitioner from his services and the confirmation of the same by the second respondent by his proceedings No.Na.Ka.1026/03/K3 dated 18.06.2003.

(2.) THE brief facts which are required to be stated are that the petitioner was working as Warehouse Manager Grade I at Dindigul Warehouse of the first respondent. He was issued with charge memo dated 23.02.2002, in which as many as five charges were leveled against him alleging that he failed to carry out periodical fumigation of the stock, that he failed to keep the godown open for cross ventilation of the stock, that he failed to ensure that there was no leakage in the storage space, which resulted in damage to a large extent of COPRAS stored in various warehouses in his custody. THE COPRAS were stated to have been belonged to various third parties who had entrusted the safe storage of such goods with the first respondent.

(3.) ASSAILING the impugned orders of the first and second respondents, Mr. Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner in his submissions contended that the principles of natural justice were completely violated in the holding of the enquiry, that the enquiry officer-s report was not furnished to the petitioner prior to the order of dismissal, that no second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, that the misconduct was not made out as alleged by the first respondent in the enquiry held by him, that the third respondent was not ultimate authority to impose the punishment also acted as appellate authority while dealing with the petitioner-s appeal and therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.