AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Ravichandrabaabu, J.—The petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings of the 1st respondent, dated 11.4.2007, whereby the petitioner
was informed that the Appellate Authority directed the disciplinary authority to continue with the disciplinary proceedings afresh from the stage of
calling for statement of objections from the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that he joined the service of the Tamil Nadu Cements
Corporation Limited in the year 1984 as ''Foreman'' and after several promotions, he is working as ''Technical Executive (Instrumental)''. On
22.1.2005, a memo was issued to the petitioner by the 3rd respondent stating that a complaint was registered against him by the Tamil Nadu
Asbestos Employees Union alleging that he had misappropriated by creation of false bills for a sum of Rs. 9,000/-. The petitioner gave an
explanation to the charges leveled against him on the very next day itself. The petitioner, thereafter, sent a letter to the 3rd respondent on
15.9.2005 and requested for completion of the enquiry at the earliest and also sought for a copy of the final report.
It is further stated that the 3rd respondent informed the petitioner that such misconduct was proved and though the same is punishable under the
Service Rules, the Management took a lenient view and consequently warned the petitioner not to repeat such misconducts. Aggrieved against
such communication issued by the 3rd respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent on 11.7.2007. The petitioner
received communication from the Public Information Officer/Secretary that on 19.4.2006 and the Appellate Authority had directed the disciplinary
authority to continue with the proceedings afresh from the stage of calling for statement of objections from the delinquent. Thereafter, the petitioner
received a communication, dated 28.11.2007 requesting him to attend for an enquiry held on 7.11.2007. Hence, he filed the present writ petition
before this Court.
The respondents filed a common counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that a charge memo, dated 4.10.2004 was issued to the petitioner, calling
for his explanation. On the same day, the petitioner submitted his explanation and as the same was not containing full particulars, the petitioner was
directed to submit further particulars in detail. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his further explanation on 2.11.2004. As the explanation
submitted by him was not satisfactory, a charge memo, dated 22.1.2005 was issued to the petitioner and directed him to submit his explanation.
On 16.6.2005, the petitioner submitted his explanation denying all the charges. Accordingly, an enquiry was conducted and the petitioner had
participated in the enquiry, wherein adequate opportunity was given to the petitioner for cross examining the witnesses. Thereafter, the Enquiry
Officer submitted his report, dated 16.7.2005 holding that the petitioner was guilty of the charges leveled against him. Although, misappropriation
of Company funds is a serious misconduct meriting dismissal, a lenient view was taken and the petitioner was administered with a warning by a
memo, dated 7.11.2005. Aggrieved against the said warning, dated 7.11.2005, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority,
who in turn, through his order, dated 2.5.2006 directed the disciplinary proceedings to commence afresh from the stage of calling for statement of
objections on the enquiry report etc. But instead of commencing the disciplinary proceedings from the stage of calling for statement of objections,
the Management of Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited, Alangulam, Virudhunagar District, by misunderstanding the direction given by the
Appellate Authority, proceeded to conduct a fresh domestic enquiry on the charges leveled against the petitioner, by appointing a new Enquiry
Officer. Thereafter, enquiry was also fixed on various dates, commencing from 7.2.2007. At this stage, the present writ petition was filed before
this Court.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
It is seen that the petitioner was charged with an allegations of misappropriation of funds, by issuing a charge memo, dated 22.1.2005. He had
also given an explanation to the said charge memo, denying the charges and pursuant to the enquiry conducted, an order came to be passed on
7.5.2005 warning the petitioner not to indulge in such an act in future. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before
the Appellate Authority, who in turn directed through his order, dated 12.5.2006 to commence the disciplinary proceedings afresh from the stage
of calling for statement of objections on the enquiry report. The respondents themselves have admitted in their counter affidavit that there was a
misunderstanding of the order passed by the Appellate Authority by the management of Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited, Alangulam.
Instead of commencing the disciplinary proceedings from the stage of calling for statement of objections on the enquiry report, the management
decided to conduct a fresh domestic enquiry on the charges leveled against the petitioner by appointing a new Enquiry Officer. The respondents at
paragraphs 7 and 13 of their counter affidavit, have specifically admitted that the order of the Appellate Authority was misconstrued and
misunderstood by the Management. Therefore, the Management is not justified in conducting a fresh domestic enquiry on the charges leveled
against the petitioner and on the other hand, they ought to have commenced the disciplinary proceedings from the stage of calling for the statement
of objections from the petitioner on the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer.
It is also pertinent to note at this juncture that the petitioner had not challenged the order of the Appellate Authority. Therefore, the order passed
by the Appellate Authority has become final, conclusive and binding on the parties. Therefore, the only course left open to the Management is to
commence the proceedings only from the stage of calling for statement of objections from the petitioner, pursuant to the enquiry report submitted
by the Enquiry Officer. Instead of doing so, conducting of a fresh domestic enquiry on the charges leveled against the petitioner afresh, is totally
unwarranted and against the order passed by the Appellate Authority.
Accordingly, all the proceedings initiated afresh in pursuant to the order passed by the Appellate Authority are set aside and the 2nd respondent
is directed to commence and continue the disciplinary proceedings from the stage of calling for statement of objections from the petitioner on the
enquiry report and complete the entire process by passing a final order on the disciplinary proceeding within a period of eight weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order.
Since the impugned communication issued by the first respondent only intimates the order of the Appellate Authority, there is no necessity for
quashing the said communication, in view of my specific direction issued to the disciplinary Authority to commence the proceedings from the stage
of calling for statement of objections on the enquiry report, as stated supra. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.