- (1.)HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.
(2.)THE petitioner has stated that he had joined in the service of the second respondent Corporation in the year, 1981, as a Trainee. THEreafter, he was appointed as a Junior Tradesman and he was posted at the Udumalpet Depot of the second respondent Corporation. As a Junior Tradesman, he had to work under the supervision of the Junior Engineer/ Assistant Engineer of the Udumalpet Depot. As such he was discharging his duties sincerely and efficiently.
The petitioner has further stated that after he had joined the service of the second respondent Corporation, he had become a member of the C.I.T.U. Trade Union. As a member of the said Union he was in its Executive Committee, carrying on the activities of the trade union, actively. Therefore, the Management of the second respondent Corporation had started creating adverse records against the petitioner without having any basis to do so. While so, the second respondent Corporation had issued a charge memo, dated 6.5.1995, vindictively, containing certain allegations against the petitioner stating that he had committed misconduct, within the meaning of the standing orders No.14(b)(k)(t)(aa)(ah). The charges framed against the petitioner were false and they were vague. The relevant clauses of the standing orders of the second respondent Corporation read as follows: Clause-14 (b). Striking work or inciting others to strike work with another or others in breach of standing orers or in contravention of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947, or any other enactment of rule in force for the time being. (k) Negligence or neglect of work. (t) Threatening, abusing, intimidating or assaulting any workman within or outside the premises of the industrial establishment if such threat, abuse, intimidation or assault is in connection with the employment in the industrial establishment. (aa) Leaving the proper place or work or the industrial establishment without authorisation. (ah) Unauthorised possession of any lethal weapon in the industrial establishment.

It has been further stated that even if the charges framed against the petitioner were true, it would not amount to misconducts, as contemplated by the relevant clauses of the standing orders of the second respondent Corporation. In fact, the charges framed against the petitioner are false, frivolous and untenable. However, the Management of the second respondent Corporation had ordered an enquiry to be conducted against the petitioner based on the charges framed against him. The enquiry officer was an Assistant Engineer of the second respondent Corporation and he was well-versed with the procedures and formalities of conducting the enquiry. However, the petitioner, having studied only upto 9th standard, was not aware of the law and the procedures to be followed during the enquiry. He was not informed about the fact that he was entitled to have the assistance of a co-worker during the enquiry. The enquiry conducted against him was neither fair nor proper.

(3.)IT has been further stated that the second respondent Corporation had not produced the attendance register to prove the allegation that the petitioner had made certain alteration therein. Only three interested witnesses had been examined on behalf of the second respondent Corporation to prove the charges framed against the petitioner. However, they were not in a position to substantiate the allegations made against the petitioner. Further, they had refused to answer the questions put to them by the petitioner during the enquiry. Further, the petitioner had not been cross examined at the time of the enquiry. The witnesses examined by the petitioner had fully supported his case. After the enquiry had been conducted, the enquiry officer had filed the enquiry report, dated 5.11.1992, stating that the charge that the petitioner had altered the attendance register was not proved. In respect of the charge that he had delayed in changing the clutch of the concerned vehicle, he had not given clear finding that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct. However, in the concluding portion of the enquiry report, the enquiry officer had stated that the charges framed against the petitioner, in relation to standing order No.14 (k)(t)(aa), were proved, while the charge in respect of the violation of the standing order No.14(ab) had not been proved. Based on the enquiry report, the second respondent Corporation had issued a second show cause notice, dated 13.1.1993, referring to the enquiry report, as well as the previous warning/punishment imposed on the petitioner on the earlier occasions, without any enquiry. The petitioner had submitted a detailed explanation, dated 2.2.1993, stating that the petitioner had not committed any misconduct.
It has been further stated that even if it was found that the petitioner had committed some irregularities, the proposed punishment of dismissal from service is highly disproportionate in nature. The warnings and punishments issued on the petitioner on the earlier occasions should not be counted for imposing the extreme punishment of dismissal from service.