S. Selvaraj vs Assistant Director, Khadi and Village Industries, Regional Deputy Director, Khadi and Village Industries, Chief Executive Officer, Khadi and Village Industries and The Secretary to Government, Khadi and Village Industries

M. Chockalingam, J.—Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner has brought forth this writ petition seeking to quash the

order of the fourth respondent dated 11.9.1997 by way of issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus.

Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as Watchman on 10.10.1998 at Marapadi Village, Kanyakumari District, and then, he was transferred

to the Godown at Mylaudy. While he was working so, there was a theft on 18.7.1990. The matter was brought to the notice of the police. A case

was registered and taken on file by the Judicial Magistrate''s Court, Nagercoil, in C.C. No. 41 of 1991, wherein this petitioner was arrayed as one

of the accused. Pending the criminal proceedings, a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner by the first respondent Disciplinary

Authority, and pending enquiry, he was kept under suspension. After the enquiry was over, the first respondent by an order dated 17.5.1991

found the charge proved against him and removed him from service. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent,

the Regional Deputy Director, Khadi and Village Industries, Madurai, and by an order dated 2.8.1991, the order of the first respondent was

affirmed. Against the said order, he preferred an appeal before the third respondent, wherein the orders of the authorities below were confirmed

on 14.11.1994. Not satisfied, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the fourth respondent namely the Secretary to Government, Khadi and

Village Industries, Madras, and by an order dated 17.3.1995, the appeal petition was dismissed. Subsequently, he filed two review applications.

The first one was dismissed on 17.3.1995, and the second one was dismissed on 11.9.1997. Under the stated circumstances, the petitioner

invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the fourth respondent made on

11.9.1997 along with a direction for reinstatement.

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the appeal by the petitioner was dismissed by the second respondent on

2.8.1991; but, he was acquitted in the criminal proceedings only on 18.9.1994; that both the first and the second respondents had no occasion to

consider that he was acquitted of the charge of theft levelled against him in the Calendar Case as referred to above, and subsequently, he filed

appeals before the third and fourth respondents. The learned Counsel would add that the fourth respondent while passing the order on 17.3.1995,

has not considered the evidence adduced by the department, but has sustained the orders of the authorities below; that in such circumstances,

there arose a necessity for filing the review applications; and that the review petitions have not been considered properly, but have been dismissed

by the authority. Added further the learned Counsel that while disposing of the review application, the fourth respondent has not considered the

evidence adduced both oral and documentary, but has rejected the same, and hence, the order of the fourth respondent has got to be set aside by

this Court.

This Court heard the learned Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 on the above contentions.

After careful consideration of the rival submissions, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition requires a dismissal in the hands of

this Court.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner was suspended, following an incident of theft, and an enquiry was conducted. It is true that he was

dismissed from service, and the appeals preferred by him before the respondents 2, 3 and 4 were dismissed. At this juncture, it is pertinent to point

out that what are all canvassed before this Court is only to quash the order of the fourth respondent passed in his review application namely the

second review application, on 11.9.1997. It remains to be stated that after the passing of the order by the fourth respondent on 17.3.1995, the

petitioner has filed one review application, and it was also dismissed, and thus, the second review application by the petitioner was dismissed by

the fourth respondent on 11.9.1997. Now, what is challenged before this Court is only the order of the fourth respondent dismissing the second

review application on 11.9.1997.

The only contention put forth by the petitioner''s side before this Court is that the fourth respondent has not investigated into the evidence both

oral and documentary that were adduced before the lower authority. It is well settled position of law that the review is not intended for re-

canvassing of the evidence already adduced by the parties before the proceedings, but only to consider the defects what were apparent on the face

of the record. Hence, the contention of the petitioner''s side does not stand the scrutiny of law. That apart, the petitioner has not challenged the

orders passed by any one of the authorities below regarding termination. This Court is unable to notice any merit in this writ petition, and it has got

to be necessarily dismissed.

In the result, this writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed leaving the parties to bear their costs.