N.PALANIVEL Vs. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in this Writ Petition is to quash the order, passed by the 2nd Respondent, dtd. 11/2/2010 and the Letter No.9070-A3-2010, dtd. 10/12/2010. In and by the said order and letter, the punishment of reduction to the lower rank/post of Assistant Manager (Materials)(SG) for a period of one year for the acts of omissions and commissions committed by the Petitioner, 2 awarded by the proceedings, dtd. 21/4/2009, of the 1st Respondent, was confirmed and the request of the Petitioner for exonerating from the charges relating to unauthorised disposal of reusable old gear boxes as cast iron scrap was not agreed to, respectively.

(2.) The case of the Petitioner is that he was working as the Manager, Materials In-charge in the year 2006 in the 1st Respondent Corporation. To dispose of the scrap, the scrap yard had been fenced and subdivided into various yards for storing various types of scraps. On 9/4/2007, the 1st Respondent had promoted the Petitioner as Deputy Manager (Materials) with effect from 9/4/2007 and in the said post, he served for seven months. A petition through fax message was sent by an unknown person, against the Petitioner and one V.Rangaraj, alleging that they came to workshop and brought three gear boxes to inside the scrap yard and loaded in the scrap loaded lorry on 14/9/2006. The Petitioner had appeared for enquiry and the said enquiry was not conducted, in accordance with law and a cryptic enquiry report was submitted. On the basis of the enquiry report, the impugned punishment of reduction to the lower rank of Assistant Manager (Materials)(SG) was imposed. As against the same, the Petitioner had preferred an appeal to the 2nd Respondent. By the impugned order, the punishment was confirmed. Hence, this Writ Petition has been filed, seeking the relief as stated above.

(3.) The learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the alleged complaint made through fax message was not properly proved and the Respondents did not conduct the enquiry, by affording sufficient opportunity to the Petitioner, on the basis of the alleged fax message dtd. 9/4/2007. The learned counsel would further submit that the Enquiry Officer had not enquired 3 the scrap dealer and not confirmed the three gear boxes, mentioned in the fax message, dtd. 9/4/2007, as to whether the said materials were loaded or not loaded in the scrap lorry on 14/9/2006. He would further submit that there was no complaint preferred against the Petitioner before the authority for the alleged charges made against the Petitioner and that the report of the Enquiry Officer is totally baseless and in violation of principles of natural justice and therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed.