P MANIARASAN Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this writ petition is to the award passed by the first respondent herein dated 30.1.2002 passed in I.D. No. 137 of 2001, confirming the order of termination dated 12.1.1998 passed by the third respondent herein. The case of the petitioner is that he was employed originally in the year 1963 as Maistry for handling food grains at the Madras Harbour, as employed by the Regional Director (Food), Southern Region, Madras. The petitioner has become the employee of the Food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as 'FCI')- The employees working in the FCI are governed by The Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation, 1971, if they are staffs and if they are workmen, they are governed by the Model Standing Orders framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. The petitioner, being a workman, is governed by the Model Standing Orders.

(2.) The petitioner was having unblemished record of 24 years of service. The petitioner was the founder and President of the FCI Employees' Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society. In the year 1983, the Elected Board was superseded by the Government and a Special Officer was appointed and the Special Officer initiated surcharge proceedings under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 against the President, Secretary and Treasurer of the Thrift Society for certain shortage of funds. Simultaneously, criminal proceedings were also initiated against the President and others. The criminal case was pending at the time of filing this writ petition, which ultimately ended in acquittal by the judgment dated 29.6.2007 passed by the 16th Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai in C.C. No. 5691 of 1987.

(3.) The petitioner was suspended by the order dated 17.8.1987 on the ground of his implication and involvement in a criminal case on the allegation of falsification of accounts and misappropriation of funds of the FCI Employees Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society. Thereafter, only in the year 1997, a communication dated 9.12.1997 was received from the third respondent herein calling the petitioner to appear before the Enquiry Committee on 15.12.1997 at 11.30 a.m. The petitioner was called to appear before the Enquiry Committee without serving any show cause notice. However, the petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Committee on 15.12.1997. During the said enquiry, no witness was examined and no document was produced and marked and only certain questions have been put to the petitioner as to whether the petitioner was willing to repay the said amount.