PARAMESWARAN V Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the Industrial Award, passed in I.D. No. 587-A/2001 dated September 13, 2002, by which the order of dismissal of the petitioner was confirmed, petitioner is before this Court. Petitioner was appointed as Extra Departmental Branch Post Master during July, 1982 by the second respondent. Subsequently a charge memo dated December 2, 1991 was issued regarding non bringing of deposit in the account of post office during the period from January 1, 1984 to January 26, 1986. The amount involved are Rs. 20, 40, 20, 10, 40, 10, 10,40, 10,40 and in all amounting to Rs. 240/-. The petitioner was put off duty on January 27, 1986 immediately after detection of the alleged valuation by the petitioner. The charge memo was suitably replied by the petitioner. Not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, the Departmental enquiry was conducted wherein it was held that the four charges leveled against the petitioner was proved. The second show cause notice was issued on October 27, 1992 for which the petitioner gave a reply on December 26, 1992. Consequently based on the enquiry report, on December 30, 1992 the petitioner was dismissed from service. An appeal dated March 22, 1993 was preferred by the petitioner and the same was dismissed by the appellate authority on January 17, 1994.

(2.) Meanwhile, criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioner in CC. No. 38/1995, before Judicial Magistrate, No. 1, Ramanathapuram who acquitted the petitioner by the judgment dated September 11, 1995. Against the order of dismissal, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the first respondent in I.D. No. 587-A/2001. After contest the Industrial Tribunal confirmed the order of dismissal by the award dated September 11, 2002 which is challenged by the petitioner- in this writ petition.

(3.) S. Jothivani learned counsel for the petitioner submitted the charge memo was issued belatedly after five years and on the ground of laches the proceedings are liable to be quashed. Secondly, she submitted that the petitioner was prejudiced because of the long delay in issuing charge memo as the petitioner was put off duty on January 27, 1986 during which period the petitioner was not given salary or allowance. Hence, counsel submitted because of the long delay the petitioner is prejudiced. Apart from that, she found fault with the enquiry conducted by the second respondent.