AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vinod K. Sharma, J.—The Petitioner has invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the proceedings, dated 13.09.2005 in Ma. Po.1/02173/04.
The Petitioner joined the service of the Respondent/Corporation in the year 1983 as a driver. The Petitioner was on an earlier occasion suspended on 12.11.2002 in proceedings in Ma. Po. The7/33993/2002 on the grave charges levelled against him.
The Petitioner was served with Charge sheet on 07.01.2003. The Petitioner challenged the order of suspension by filing a Writ Petition.7756 of 2003, wherein, directions were issued to the Respondents to proceed with the enquiry and in any event, complete the proceedings within three months from the date of passing of the order.
The Petitioner was reinstated in service pending enquiry.
It is the case of the Petitioner that no decision on the enquiry was taken or conveyed to the Petitioner.
The Petitioner was again placed under suspension on 30.01.2004 on the allegations of gave misconduct. The Petitioner was served with Charge-sheet on 29.05.2004 to which the Petitioner submitted his explanation on 02.06.2004.
The Enquiry Officer found the Petitioner guilty of charges, thereafter he was served with a copy of the enquiry report on 01.07.2004, whereas, Charge Nos. 2,3 and 5 held to be not proved, wherein, charges 1 and 4 was proved.
The Petitioner submitted a reply to the show-cause notice, the Respondent No. 1 after considering the reply submitted, decided to impose a major punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, which were directed to be implemented after a period of one year, as the Petitioner was already served with punishment of reversion in a different proceeding.
It is unnecessary to go into the merits of the controversy, as it is not disputed that the Petitioner has the remedy of statutory appeal under Rule 12(b) of the Madurai Corporation Services (Discipline and Appeal)Rules, 1975.
The Writ petition is accordingly dismissed, granting liberty to file a statutory appeal.
However, keeping in view that the Petitioner has been agitating his grievance in this Court since 2005. In case of Petitioner filing an appeal within a period of 30 days from today, it be considered to have been filed within the period of limitation.
The Appellate Authority is directed to dispose of the appeal if filed by the Petitioner, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, on merit in accordance with law. No costs.