G. KALIASAMY, QUALITY INSPECTOR, OPERATION GODOWN, PANRUTTI, TAMIL NADU CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPN. LTD., SOUTH ARCOT VALLALAR Vs. THE CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, TAMIL NADU CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPN. LTD., MADRAS,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

(2.) IN this writ petition, the validity of the charge memo dated 29.11.1994 and the order dated 15.2.1994 have been challenged. The petitioner is an employee under the respondent No.1. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him on certain allegations relating to shortage of gunny bags and loss of value of gunny bags due to damage in May 1995. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an explanation. The enquiry officer submitted his report holding that the first charge relating to shortage of gunny bags had not been established. But the second charge i.e. loss of value of gunny bags due to damage had been proved. However, the disciplinary authority differing from the enquiry officer held that both the charges had been proved and directed recovery of the amount from the petitioner within one week by order dated 26.9.86. Against the aforesaid order, the present petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent. The appellate authority by order dated 3.5.90 set aside the order of the appellate authority and remanded the matter for fresh disposal. Subsequently, the petitioner again furnished his explanation and the enquiry officer by report dated 3.6.91 observed that the charges had not been proved. On the basis of the said report, the disciplinary authority passed final order holding that the charges have not been proved and thereby dropped the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. Thereafter, the first respondent purported to review the earlier order by passing an order dated 15.2.94 and directed that the case would be reopened and the petitioner should face an enquiry. On the basis of the said order, the charge memo has been issued on 29.11.94. After receipt of such charge memo the present writ petition had been filed questioning the legality of the order dated 15.2.94 and subsequent order dated 29.11.94.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the respondent states that even at the relevant time when the disciplinary authority has passed the order there was no provision containing certain regulations applicable to Tamilnadu Civil supplies Corporation. Subsequently, by amendment such review power in the shape of as contained in Chapter V regulation 12 had been incorporated which became effective from 13.3.93 and in exercise of such power the review has been allowed. It has been, however submitted even though, while deciding the review no opportunity had been given the petitioner can avail of this opportunity as the charge memo has been issued and he can submit his explanation.