Decided on September 24,1970

S.V.RAMAN Appellant


- (1.) WHILE the petitioner, Raman, was working as Warehouse Superintendent at karur under the Madras State Warehousing Corporation, the respondent herein, he was served with a charge memo dated 9-5-1968 pointing out certain lapses. Before final orders could be passed on the matter, he was served with a memo of additional charges for alleged lapses of insubordination, indiscipline and dishonesty. On 16-9-1968, he was placed under suspension and was relieved of his duties with effect from 19-9-1968 and thereafter 12 consolidated charges were framed against him. He was asked to show cause before 20-11-1968 as to why he should not be removed from service for those charges. On 4-11-1968, he submitted a letter to the Managing Director stating that he had already submitted his explanation on 22-5-1968 in respect of the charge memo dated 9-5-1968, that he was not responsible for the charges framed against him and that he might be allowed to explain his grievances in an open enquirey. He followed up this by a subsequent explanation dated 22-11-1968 in which he repudiated the allegations made against him in support of the charges and prayed that the charges may be dropped. In that explanation he did not say that an oral enquiry should be held or that any witnesses on his side should be examined. Thinking that the petitioner had not asked for an oral enquirey and overlooking the request already made by him in his communication dated 4-11-1968, the Managing Director considered the explanation and held that the explanation was not acceptable and the charges were proved. On 21-2-1969, the Managing Director passed the following order: "he is found to be guilty of all the 12 charges now framed against him and the case was submitted to Chairman with the recommendation for removal from service as indicated in the charge memo and the Chairman has agreed with the recommendation made. As such, according to Regulation No. 12 (7) of the Madras State warehousing Corporation staff Regulation housing Corporation staff regulations 1965, Thiru S. V. Raman Warehouse Superintendent is removed from the services of the Madras State Warehousing Corporation with effect form 16-2-1968 A. N. " It is to quash this order that this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed.
(2.) THE petitioner contends inter alia that the order of the respondents is in violation of the provisions of the Regulations which enjoin upon the Corporation to follow a particular procedure in departmental action, and that the said procedure has been violated and that, as such, the entire proceeding is vitiated. It is also his submission that no opportunity was given to him to prove his innocence in spite of the fact that he had asked for an open enquirey.
(3.) ON behalf of the respondent, a counter affidavit has been filed alleging inter alia that the procedure followed is in accordance with the regulations, that, as the petitioner did not want an oral enquiry to be conducted in his explanation dated 22-11-1968, no oral enquiry to be conducted in his explanation dated 22-11-1968, no oral enquiry was held and that, therefore, the enquiry is not in any way vitiated. It is further contended that the respondent being only a statutory corporation, this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, is not maintainable. Further, it is contended that under the Regulations, the petitioner is entitled to prefer an appeal to the Chairman of the Executive Committee against the order of the Managing Director and that without exhausting the remedy of the appeal, the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this court.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.