SADHASIVAM S Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR HEAD OFFICE TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION LIMITED VILLUPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenged the punishment order dated January 22, 2003 inflicted on him pursuant to the domestic enquiry conducted by the first respondent. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Junior Assistant on February 13, 1990 and he was promoted as an Assistant in 1996 in the first respondent Corporation. He was placed under suspension with effect from September 15,2001 along with four employees pending charges by an order dated September 15, 2001.

(2.) The charge memo dated December 15, 2001 was issued to the petitioner and he submitted his explanation on December 19, 2001 denying the charges. Not satisfied with the1 explanation given by the petitioner, the first respondent appointed an inquiry officer. The inquiry officer conducted an inquiry and found that the charges levelled against the petitioner workman was not proved. The said inquiry report was submitted by the inquiry officer on February 27, 2002. The first respondent sent a show cause notice to the petitioner saying that the findings of the inquiry officer was not proper and took a decision to punish the petitioner for the said charges and asked for petitioner's explanation. The petitioner submitted his explanation on July 30,2002 and again the first respondent in his letter dated. August 10, 2002 issued another show cause notice giving the details of the punishment which was replied by the petitioner on August 19, 2002. Subsequently, the first respondent passed the impugned order reducing petitioner's salary from Rs. 4,530/- to 3,460/- per month for a period of three years and treated the entire suspension period as eligible leave and that there would be no increments for a period of three years and a sum of Rs. 19,000/- would be -the recovered from the salary towards the alleged loss caused to the first respondent corporation.

(3.) The petitioner made an appeal to the second respondent on September 5, 2002 and for the disposal of the said appeal, he filed W.P. No. 36919/2002, and got an order directing the second respondent to dispose of the appeal with in a period of three months. The said appeal was disposed of by the second respondent confirming the order of the first respondent with the slight modification in it. Though the first respondent ordered reduction of the petitioner's pay for a period of three years, the second respondent reduced the petitioner's salary for one year and in other aspects the order was confirmed. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.