BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05.04.2006 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI W.P.No.3196 of 2006 and W.P.M.P.No.3462 Of 2006 J.Sudhakaran ... Petitioner Vs. The District Manager, (Retail Sales) Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation, (TASMAC) Sivagangai, Sivaganga District. ... Respondent PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for records to the proceedings of the respondent in Na.Ka.No.A8/147/2006 dated 21.03.2006 and quash the same. !For Petitioner ... Mr.R.Sundar ^For Respondent ... Mr.M.Thick Vijayapandian :ORDER
Mr.M.Thick Vijayapandian, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the
respondent.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the
learned counsel appearing for the respondent. By consent of both counsel, the
writ petition is taken up for final disposal.
3. This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the respondent
dated 21.03.2006, in and by which the petitioner, a TASMAC employee was
terminated from service, in respect of an incident that is stated to have taken
place on 27.01.2005, on the allegation that the petitioner had beaten another
co-employee, one R.Kongeswaran, on 27.01.2005 and the FIR was lodged on
01.02.2005 and a criminal case is also pending. Earlier, by an order dated
27.01.2005, the petitioner was terminated from service without giving any
opportunity.
4. A Division Bench of this Court, by an order dated 14.11.2005, in
W.P.No.9671 of 2005, has set aside the impugned order, however giving liberty to
the respondent to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law as per
the condition of the appointment. Based on that, the present impugned order came
to be passed by the respondent. A reference to the impugned order of termination
would show that the statement was not obtained from the petitioner and on the
basis of statement given by somebody else, which is admittedly not obtained in
the presence of the petitioner, the authority came to a conclusion as if the
charges have been proved against the petitioner. On the face of it, I am
convinced that the impugned order was passed without following the principles of
natural justice.
5. Earlier, this Court had directed the respondent to conduct enquiry in
accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract. But, nowhere in the
impugned order, the terms and conditions of the contract have been mentioned.
That apart, no evidence has been taken against the petitioner in his presence
and moreover the petitioner was not given any opportunity to cross-examine any
witness, who has given statement against the petitioner.
6. In view of the same, the impugned order suffers from the basic
illegality of violation of principles of natural justice and on that ground, the
impugned order is set aside, giving liberty to the respondent to proceed against
the petitioner in accordance with law after giving due opportunity to the
petitioner and in conformity with the principles of natural justice.
7. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the
connected W.P.M.P is closed. There is no order as to costs.
To
The District Manager,
(Retail Sales)
Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation,
(TASMAC)
Sivagangai,
Sivaganga District.