M. SRIDHAR & ORS. Vs. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W.A(MD) Nos. 1322 to 1333 of 2017: Preface: The Appellants/Writ Petitioners have filed the present Intra-Court Writ Appeals before this Court as against the Common Order in W.P(MD) Nos. 20001, 20009, 20145, 20153, 20154, 20167, 20169, 20170, 20182, 20190, 20191 of 2015 and 22715 of 2016, dated 02.05.2017 respectively passed by the Learned Single Judge.

(2.) Earlier, this Court, in the common order in W.P(MD) Nos. 20001, 20009, 20145, 20153, 20154, 20167, 20169, 20170, 20182, 20190, 20191 of 2015 and 22715 of 2016, dated 02.05.2017, filed by the Appellants (as Writ Petitioners), at Paragraph No. 15.1 had observed the following:

(3.) The Summation of Necessary Facts - [W.P.(MD)No. 20001 of 2015]: 3. 1. The Appellant had completed his 8th Standard in Panchayat Union Middle School, Kadaladi Panchayat Union, Ramnad District. He was issued with a Transfer Certificate. As a matter of fact, he was appointed as 'Trainee Driver' in the Respondents/Transport Corporation on 09.05.1992. He was confirmed as Driver on 20.01.1993. After 13 years, i.e., on 25.05.2005, he was issued with a Charge Memo on the basis that he had produced a Bogus Educational Certificate at the time of appointment and he was directed to file his objections, within 72 Hours. On 18.07.2005, he submitted his explanation by denying the charge. 3. 2. It is the stand of the Appellant that without providing an opportunity to supply the documents, the second Respondent/General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam Limited), Division -III, Karaikudi Region, Karaikudi, on 09.08.2005, had issued an Enquiry Notice to conduct Domestic Enquiry. Indeed, on 26.12.2005, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report and drew Minutes as if the Appellant had produced Bogus Certificate. 3. 3. On 09.01.2006, the second Respondent issued a Notice to the Appellant calling for his objection, if any, on the Enquiry Report. On 20.01.2006, the Appellant submitted his representation to the second Respondent seeking some documents which were relied upon by the Enquiry Officer and based on the said documents, the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion. In fact, the version of the Appellant is that on 04.03.2006, the second Respondent had refused to furnish copies of documents as if the Appellant had signed each and every page of the Enquiry Proceedings and knew about all the Enquiry Proceedings and held that there was no need to supply the documents. Further, on 25.03.2006, the Appellant sent another representation before the second Respondent with a request to furnish the documents and also sought time to submit his explanation. The second Respondent, on 17.04.2006, without furnishing the documents, issued notice to the Appellant calling upon him to submit his explanation on the Enquiry Report. On 27.05.2006, the Appellant submitted his representation to the Respondents to furnish the documents relied upon in the Enquiry Report. On 10.08.2006, the second Respondent had issued a show cause notice to the Appellant to submit his explanation. On 08.03.2012, the second Respondent sent a reminder letter to the Appellant calling upon him to submit his explanation. On 01.10.2015, the second Respondent issued a show cause notice calling upon the Appellant to submit his explanation on the Enquiry Report, within 7 days, failing which, he was informed that he will be terminated from service. On 19.10.2015, the second Respondent passed the impugned order terminating the Appellant from service. Therefore, the Appellant had preferred the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No. 20001 of 2015. W.A.(MD)No. 1323 of 2017:-