(1.) WHEN the matter came up on 13.10.2009, the counsel for the petitioner informed that the petitioner has taken away the bundle along with the change of Vakalat. Therefore, the petitioner's name was directed to be printed in the cause list. WHEN the matter was called out, there was no representation on the side of the petitioner. Therefore, the Court was compelled to deal with the matter on the basis of the available records.
(2.) THE petitioner being employed as Junior Engineer in the Kumbakonam Municipality, Tanjavore District, filed O.A.No,6904 of 1998 before the Tribunal seeking to challenge the charge memo dated 19.9.1990 as well as the show cause notice dated 29.7.1998 passed by the respondent Commissioner of Municipal Administration. By a show cause notice dated 29.7.1998, the petitioner was directed to offer her explanation on the Enquiry officer's report dated 15.7.1998. Pending the Original Application, the Tribunal by its order dated 28.8.1998 granted interim stay. THE ground raised by the petitioner which prima facie found acceptance by the Tribunal was that even before getting explanation and considering the same, the impugned show cause notice was issued wherein the respondents have stated that the charges were proved and she should explain as to why the proposed punishment should not be imposed on her. THE said interim order is continued until further orders. THE respondent filed M.A.No.1164 of 1999 seeking for vacating the interim order. Despite the said application, the Tribunal did not take up the said application for many hearings for the reason best known to it.
(3.) THE second contention raised in the original application is that there was inordinate delay in framing the charges. In the present case, the petitioner has given explanation to the charge memo and also has participated in the enquiry. It is only when the enquiry report was furnished to her, she has chosen to make the grievance about the so called delay in conducting the enquiry.