respondent refused to receive the notice of enquiry. Although the first respondent took part in the enquiry held on 01.06.1991, he renewed his request to grant him permission to peruse the records. However, the repeated request made by the first respondent was refused. Surprisingly, when the enquiry was held, the President, Mr.P.Palanivelu, who is also the disciplinary authority, appeared as a management witness before the enquiry officer and supported the charges issued against the first respondent. After the President, who is also the disciplinary authority, appeared as a management witness before the enquiry officer, he ought not to have passed the order of termination as the disciplinary authority. In the present case, the President, Mr.P.Palanivelu, who appeared as a management witness before the enquiry officer supporting the charge memo, relying on the report of the enquiry officer holding the first respondent guilty of both the charges, has passed the order of termination. Therefore, the learned single Judge, referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Mohamed Nooh, AIR 1958 SC 86, deprecating the approach adopted by the enquiry officer not permitting the delinquent to peruse the documents and equally finding fault with the approach adopted by the disciplinary authority, who appeared as a management witness before the enquiry officer and passed the order of termination, that would be violative of the golden principles of natural justice, set aside the order of termination and the findings and conclusions reached by the Labour Court, Tiruchirappalli and allowed the writ petition. Since the first respondent, in the meanwhile, had reached the age of superannuation on 05.01.2009, the learned single Judge, he pleaded, has rightly ordered for payment of 50% of backwages to the first respondent. When the first respondent is entitled to get full backwages for the simple reason that no enquiry was held, however, the first respondent has not filed any appeal. Therefore, the appellant ought to have disbursed the amount representing 50% of backwages without filing this appeal. Since they have filed the appeal against the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Mohamed Nooh, AIR 1958 SC 86, the appellant has no legs to stand and the appeal is liable to be dismissed, he pleaded.
