- (1.) S. M. Lawrence, the petitioner herein, has filed this writ petition praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus by calling for the records, pertaining to the order bearing No. 21693/90/k4, dated December 6, 1990, in confirming the order No. R. C. 16602/88/k4, dated September 14, 1990, dismissing the petitioner from service, and to quash the same and direct the respondent-Tamil Nadu Warehousing Corporation, Madras, to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and with full back wages.
(2.) THE minimum facts that are required for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: " (A) The petitioner joined the respondent-management as Warehouse Manager Grade 1, on December 6, 1964. He was promoted as Regional Manager with effect from September 4, 1982. When he was working as Regional Manager at Trichy, he was served with a charge memo bearing No. R. C. 16602/88/k4, dated July 21, 1988. In the said memo, sixteen specific charges were framed under Regulation 14 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Warehousing Corporation General and Staff Regulations, 1965, for various irregularities committed by the petitioner relating to the misuse of his official power and receipt of illegal gratification, etc. (B) The additional charge No. 17 was also framed against the petitioner for abusing his powers to draw without conforming to the financial discipline. These charges were framed based on the report of Vigilance Officer one Sri Kathirvelu. The petitioner was also, subsequently, placed under suspension by an order, dated August 19, 1988. As against this Order, he filed a suit before the Sub-Court, Trichy. Ultimately, the suit was dismissed as withdrawn on December 23, 1988. (C) The management, thereafter, on the representations made, by the petitioner, cancelled the suspension order, reinstated him in service pending disposal of the disciplinary action already taken against him. Then, he was furnished the copies of the references, which form the basis of the charges, on July 11, 1989. He was also instructed to submit his explanation in questionnaire form. (D) On August 1, 1989, the petitioner requested for the copies of the report of the Vigilance Officer and sought one month's time to submit his explanation. Accordingly, he was furnished with all the copies of the report of the Vigilance Officer and granted 15 days time to offer his explanation by a letter, dated August 19, 1989. (E)By a letter, dated August 28, 1989, the petitioner requested copies of some other documents without giving the details. When he was asked about the details of the documents, the petitioner failed to make any reply for that. At this stage on February 22, 1990, one Sri Parthasarathy, Assistant Manager (Technical), was appointed as enquiry officer to conduct an enquiry with regard to the charges framed against the petitioner and make a report. The petitioner was also further directed to submit his explanation before the enquiry officer by letter, dated June 30, 1990. Till then, the petitioner did not choose to offer any explanation to the charge-memo, dated July 21, 1988. The enquiry officer conducted enquiry on May 24, 1990 and May 27, 1990. After the enquiry was over, he submitted his report on August 23, 1990. (F) On consideration of the enquiry report other materials produced against the petitioner as well as the statements made by the petitioner before the enquiry officer, the respondent passed an impugned order on September 14, 1990, accepting the enquiry officer's report holding that out of 17 charges framed against the petitioner, 16 charges were proved and dismissed the petitioner from service of the respondent-Corporation. Along with the impugned order, a copy of the report of the enquiry officer was also sent. (G) On receipt of the impugned order and the copy of the report of the enquiry officer, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Executive Committee, Tamil Nadu Warehousing Corporation, on November 13, 1990. The said Committee, after consideration of the representations contained in the appeal memorandum, impugned order, dated September 14, 1990, and other records, dismissed the appeal on December 16, 1990, confirming the dismissal order, by holding that the charges have been proved, and the petitioner deserved to be dismissed. Hence, this present writ petition as against the orders mentioned above. "
(3.) SRI Jayesh B. Dolia, teamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, while attacking the impugned orders, dated September 14, 1990 and December 6, 1990, would contend the following: " (i) The enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer was irregular and no proper opportunity was given to the petitioner. The charges framed against the petitioner were fabricated and false as the same were foisted on the petitioner by the Vigilance Officer, against whom he made complaints. The petitioner had given proper explanation for each and every charge framed against him. The evidence of the witnesses were not recorded and the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses was refused. The statements made by the witnesses were recorded behind the back of the petitioner under coercion and compulsion and, therefore, the statements of those witnesses, could not be relied upon. (ii) The regulation envisages that for imposing extreme penalty of dismissal, concurrence of the Chairman should be obtained. But, in the instant case, the concurrence was not obtained. Regulation 14 (2) (b) provides for giving an opportunity to the petitioner before imposing a punishment of dismissal. But, in the instant case no such opportunity was given to the petitioner before issuing of orders. (iii) Furthermore, the respondent who passed the original order of dismissal, disposed of the appeal preferred by the petitioner as the appellate authority as he happens to be the Chairman of the Warehousing Corporation. Since the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority is one and the same and the procedure contemplated under the regulations have not been followed, the entire proceedings are wrong and the impugned orders September 14, 1990 and December 6, 1990 have to be quashed and consequently, the petitioner has to be reinstated. ";