AYYASAMY Vs. SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER, TAMIL NADU STATE MARKETING CORPORATION LIMITED (TASMAC) AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to quash the order passed by the first respondent made in MU.MU.Number 3776/12 (U) dated 28.05.2012 and the order passed by the second respondent in proceedings in Na.Ka.No.C.V.3/03/2011/A1 dated 21.07.2011, confirming the said order, by which the petitioner has been dismissed from the service and to direct the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with full back wages with continuity of service including all other attendant and monetary benefits to the petitioner.

(2.) As it appears that the petitioner was appointed as a sales man by the respondents on 05.01.2004 in their retail vending shop at Serapattu. The aforesaid vending shop of the petitioner was inspected by the Assistant Manager (Accounts) on 18.03.2011 and some defects were found that is the petitioner was selling liquor in a loose condition and such liquor bottles were in unfit condition of selling. Thereafter, the petitioner was put under suspension and charge memo was issued on the basis of the said report of a inspection that the petitioner was selling liquor in loose condition and also alcoholic percentage of the same liquor bottles were not in accordance with the prescribed standards and the petitioner was failed to do his duty. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his explanation and faced the disciplinary proceedings and ultimately, in the disciplinary proceedings, it was found by the Enquiry Officer that the petitioner/delinquent was found guilty. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority based on such enquiry report, dismissed the petitioner from service. The petitioner thereafter has challenged the same in an appeal before the first respondent/Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority however, has dismissed the same and confirmed the order passed by the first respondent/Disciplinary Authority.

(3.) The petitioner therefore challenges such finding of the Enquiry Officer and punishment imposed, which has been confirmed by the second respondent, in this writ petition to be illegal and arbitrary. Inasmuch as no reasonable opportunity was given to him to defend his case. So also the enquiry was conducted in a hurried and hast manner and as such it cannot be sustained. Hence, the order of dismissal cannot be sustained. The order of the Appellate Authority was also challenged on the ground that the Appellate Authority in oblivious to the aforesaid having confirmed the order without giving him reasonable opportunity, the same cannot be sustained. Hence, made the prayer as stated earlier.