R MUTHUKRISHNAN Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITION filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the third respondent made in Lr.No.17724/D/2002, dated 18.1.2006 confirming the order of the second respondent made under proceeding No,68/D2/5393/Legal/TSTC (Slm)/2004-2, dated 22.4.2005 and M.No,68/D2/5393/Legal/TSTC (Salem)/2004-2, dated 09.11.2004 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same and direct the first respondent to pay the withheld salaries in pursuant to the order passed by him under M.No,68/D2/5393/Legal/ TSTC (Slm)/2004-2, dated 09.11.2004 till date. The petitioner was working as a Law Officer in the cadre of an Assistant Manager. He was imposed with a punishment of reduction in the lowest of the scale of his basic pay for a period of three years by an order dated 09.11.2004 issued by the first respondent. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Board of Directors by his appeal dated 12.11.2004. In the 172nd meeting of the Board of Directors held on 19.3.2005, the petitioner's appeal was rejected and the same was communicated by a letter dated 22.4.2005. The petitioner moved the third respondent by a representation dated 16.9.2005. It is not clear under what provision of law the petitioner had moved the third respondent Government especially when he was working in a Government company and it is an autonomous body. However, the Government by an order dated 18.1.2006 rejected his appeal stating that it was submitted beyond appeal period. It is these orders which are under challenge before this Court.

(2.) THE writ petition was admitted on 22.3.2006. His prayer for an interim order was declined by this Court. Though the matter was referred to for resolution by the Lok Adalat, as the same could not be resolved and it was referred back to this court for a decision on merits. On behalf of the first respondent, a detailed counter affidavit dated 'nil' (September 2006) was filed.

(3.) THE petitioner did not dispute his role in placing the matter before the Sub-Committee, even though the Sub-Committee had no such financial powers to take decision on award amounts exceeding Rs.3 lakhs. In fact, in his affidavit, he has admitted his role but defended himself by saying that he had done it in the interest of the Corporation. THE following averments found in para 6 may be usefully extracted below:-