BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19/07/2005 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. KULASEKARAN W.P.NO.5845 OF 2005 and WPMP No.6372 of 2005 L. Savariraj, Watchman, K. Abisekhapuram Division, Tiruchirapalli Corporation, Tiruchirapalli. ... Petitioner Versus 1.The Commissioner, Tiruchirapalli City Municipal Corporation, Tiruchirapalli. 2.The Assistant Commissioner -cum- Enquiry Officer, K. Abisekhapuram Division, Tiruchirapalli City Municipal Corporation, Tiruchirapalli. ... Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein. !For Petitioner ... Mr.K. Rajkumar ^For Respondents ... Mr.P. Srinivas :ORDER
This writ petition is listed today for admission and I heard the learned
counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Corporation.
2. The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition praying for
a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the
proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner, K. Abisekhapuram Division,
Tiruchirapalli, the second respondent herein made in Na.Ka.No.C3/6220/2002
(Maiyam) in Na.Da.La.dated 30-05-2005 quash the same and direct the respondents
herein to permit the petitioner to continue as watchman in the existing post
with all his service and monetary benefits.
3. The petitioner was appointed as watchman in the first respondent
Corporation. For certain alleged irregularities, the first respondent has
issued a charge memo and on receipt of the same the petitioner has submitted a
representation to the first respondent seeking to furnish the documents relied
on him. The first respondent has also appointed the second respondent as enquiry
officer, who conducted enquiry by examining some witnesses, but the request of
the petitioner to cross-examine those witnesses were rejected by the second
respondent and enquiry report was filed, which is challenged in the writ
petition.
4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
enquiry officer, without affording an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses
has concluded the enquiry and submitted his enquiry report to the first
respondent, which is violative of the principles of natural justice and prayed
to quash the enquiry report which is impugned in this writ petition.
5. This Court ordered notice to the respondents, but the respondents
have not chosen to file any counter till date. It is seen from the impugned
enquiry report, that the second respondent has hastily concluded the enquiry
without considering the request of the petitioner to cross-examine the
witnesses.
6. The proceedings in which punishments are sought to be awarded are
quasi-judicial in nature, both at the earlier stage of enquiry into the charges
and at the later stage of awarding punishment, hence reasonable opportunity
shall be given to the delinquent, denial of cross examination that too when a
written request is made amount to denial of opportunity.
7. In view of the fact that the enquiry officer/ the second respondent
has concluded the enquiry, without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to
cross-examine the witnesses, and filed the report, the impugned order is
setaside. The matter is remanded back to the second respondent to conduct
enquiry from the stage where the petitioner sought permission to cross-examine
the witnesses of the establishment/corporation and also permit him to examine
his witnesses if any. The petitioner is also directed to co-operate for
completion of the enquiry and the enquiry officer is further directed to
complete the enquiry and submit his report to the first respondent within a
period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
8. With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of. No
costs. Consequently, connected WPMP is also closed.
gsr
TO
1.The Commissioner,
Tiruchirapalli City Municipal Corporation,
Tiruchirapalli.
2.The Assistant Commissioner -cum-
Enquiry Officer,
K. Abisekhapuram Division,
Tiruchirapalli City Municipal Corporation,
Tiruchirapalli.