AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.K. Rajan, J.—The petitioner filed the above writ petition praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the
respondents comprised in the Final Order in No. 2214/A1/99 dated 06.04.2000 of the second respondent removing the petitioner from service,
and the Appellate Order of the first respondent in Lr. No. 2214/A1/99 dated 06.07.2000, quash both the impugned orders as illegal and arbitrary
in nature, and consequently direct the respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner in service with all attendant benefits effective from the date of
his suspension.
The petitioner was appointed on 31.10.1968 as Maistry (Grade II) in the respondent Corporation, he was promoted periodically and promoted
as Assistant Manager (Finance); in all he was put in 32 years of service; while so, on 01.09.1999 an order of suspension was passed suspending
him from service due to certain serious omissions and commissions in the settlement of claims of the Clearing Agent. Thereafter enquiry was
conducted and second show cause notice was given on 07.10.1999 with the findings of the enquiry officer. The petitioner approached this Court
by way of writ petition in W.P. No. 19260 of 1999 and this Court by an order dated 03.12.1999 directing the respondent to furnish the enquiry
report to the petitioner. Subsequent to that impugned order was passed on 06.04.2000 thereby removing the petitioner from service with effect
from 03.09.1999. Thereafter the petitioner presented an appeal as per the rules, to the first respondent, and the appeal was dismissed by an order
dated 06.07.2000 by the very same person who passed the first impugned order dated 06.04.2000.
Mr. M. Balasubramanian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the appeal was disposed of by the appellate authority who
passed the order dated 06.07.2000. This is in violation of principles of natural justice and hence, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside on
this ground alone.
Heard Mr. R. Viduthalai, learned counsel for the respondents.
The appeal was dismissed by the three members committee in which, admittedly the person who passed the order dated 06.04.2000 was also a
member and he participated in the proceedings of the appeal committee. As such the said procedure is not legal and it is ab initio void as it violates
the principles of natural justice that no person shall decide his own case. Hence, the order passed on 06.07.2000 in appeal is set aside and the
matter is remitted back to the Corporation to dispose the same afresh.
At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation and he has to retire on
31.05.2003. Therefore, the matter need not be remitted back and the Court itself can decide the other aspects also.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that with respect to similar charges against some other persons, the charges framed against those
persons were dropped. Therefore, charges framed against the petitioner herein may also be dropped. This argument of the learned counsel for the
petitioner cannot be entertained at this point of time. The petitioner is entitled to raise all these points before the appellate authority and the
petitioner is entitled to file an application before the appellate authority with regard to subsequent developments by way of additional grounds,
within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. When such application is filed before the appellate authority, the
appellate authority shall consider the same and dispose of the appeal on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks
thereafter.
With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the
appellate authority, he is at liberty to approach this Court by way of writ petition. No costs.