AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Chockalingam, J.—This writ petition has been brought forth seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the respondent dated
31.1.2001.
When the matter was taken up for consideration, there was no representation for the respondent''s side. This Court heard the learned Counsel
for the petitioner, perused the affidavit in support of the petition and had a scrutiny of the materials available including the order under challenge.
From the affidavit filed in support of the petition and the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also the counter
affidavit filed by the respondent, it would be quite clear that the petitioner was working as a Managing Director in the District Agro Engineering
Service Society, Kanchipuram from 26.6.2000, and previously, he was the Managing Director of Tirunelveli Society. On transfer from Tirunelveli
to Kanchipuram, he was serving so, and he was holding the said permanent post. The Tamil Nadu Agro Engineering Cooperative Federation Ltd.,
the respondent herein, is a state level unit, and its District Unit is known as District Cooperative Agro Engineering Services Ltd. The District Unit is
affiliated to AGROFED as referred to above. Pursuant to the proposal to start Uzhavar Santhai at Kanchipuram, the site for starting the Uzhavar
Santhai was chosen by the District Collector. The construction work was actually entrusted with the petitioner, and it was done under his
supervision also. After the work was over, some technical difficulties and lapses in the construction were noticed by the Commissioner, Agricultural
Marketing, the funding authority, and the same was reported to the respondent. On receipt of such report, the respondent served on the petitioner,
an order dated 31.1.2001 removing him from service, which is under challenge.
A reading of the order impugned would reveal that the petitioner was held responsible for the following.
(a) As a Managing Director he has not inspected the construction of Uzhavar Sandhai at Kancheepuram and not sent any report to this office.
(b) He has not requested to this office the site selected on the construction work of Uzhavar Sandhai work at Kancheepuram is suitable or
otherwise.
(c) He has not sent technical report about the foundation of beams, basement and lintel etc. He has not consulted any Senior Officer for inspection
and further follow up action.
(d) Therefore, he has not done his legitimate duties as Managing Director of the society in this aspect. Due to his lethargic attitude, the Federation
has incurred a loss of Rs. 6.00 lakhs for which he is responsible for the loss incurred to the Federation.
The said order does not refer to any memo of charges levelled against the petitioner or any enquiry conducted or speaks of any opportunity of
being heard before passing such an order.
A scrutiny of the counter affidavit would also reveal that the order under challenge has been passed directly without even framing charges against
the petitioner or calling for any explanation or giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner; but on the contrary, the affidavit would read
that the petitioner under the provisions of the Act should have preferred an appeal, challenging the said order of termination of service. It was
contended by the respondent''s side that instead of exhausting that remedy, the petitioner has chosen to file this writ petition, and hence, the writ
petition was to be dismissed.
In a given case like this, where the respondent in his capacity as Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Agro Engineering and Service Cooperative
Federation Ltd, in violation of the principles of natural justice, has passed such an order, without any hesitation, the same has got to be set aside.
The case of the respondent that there are appeal provisions available under the Act, and he should have exhausted the remedy by way of an
appeal does not require any consideration at all in a case like this where an order has been passed even without framing charges or calling for
explanation or giving an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, it is a fit case, where the order of the respondent has got to be set aside.
Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to the relief of writ of certiorari asked for. It is brought to the notice of the Court that pending the writ
petition, the petitioner works in the same department in the said post, pursuant to an order of stay of the impugned order by this Court.
In the result, this writ petition is allowed, and the order of the respondent is quashed. However, it is made clear that this order in no way would
stand in the way of framing the necessary charges and conduct of an enquiry against the petitioner by the competent authority in accordance with
law. No costs.