The Management Vs T.Raja

pertaining to the order dated 24.09.2021 passed by the second respondent in Approval Petition No.130 of 2019 and quash the same, consequently direct the second respondent to approve the order of the petitioner dated 30.09.2019 dismissing the first respondent from service.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr. C.Senapathi For Respondent 1: Mr. R.Ganesh Legal Aid Counsel For Respondent 2: Mr. M.Jayanthi Additional Government Pleader.

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner management has challenged the dismissal of their approval petition by the 2^nd respondent herein. The short facts necessary for disposing of the above Writ Petition is herein below set out.

¶20

2/8

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

W.P.No.25087 of 2021

¶23

The 1^st respondent was working as an Assistant Trades Man in the petitioner corporation. He had been in an unauthorised leave, for a total number of 487 days between the months of October 2017 to January 2019 which is against the Rule 24 (6) (A) of the Standing Order of the petitioner corporation. Therefore, the petitioner corporation had issued charge memos dated 08.02.2018, 23.04.2018, 06.07.2018, 16.10.2018 and 04.02.2019 against the 1^st respondent.

¶24

The 1^st respondent who had received the charge memos had not

¶25

submitted any explanation. Therefore, the petitioner decided to conduct domestic enquiry on the above charge memos and appointed an Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry. The Enquiry Officer had sent five enquiry notices to the 1^st respondent on various dates asking him to appear for the enquiry. These notices were sent by registered post with acknowledgement due and the 1^st respondent, despite receiving the same had not entered enquiry proceedings.

¶26

3/8

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

W.P.No.25087 of 2021

¶29

Therefore, the Enquiry Officer was forced to conduct an ex parte enquiry and by his enquiry report dated 16.04.2019 held that the charges against the 1^st respondent was proved. The petitioner had sent the Enquiry Report seeking for explanation from the 1^st respondent. However, the postal cover was returned with the endorsement "Door Locked".

¶30

Once again a show cause notice dated 07.06.2019 was sent to the petitioner asking him to show cause as to why the order of dismissal from the service should not be imposed against him. To this also also there was no reply. Therefore, the dismissal order dated 30.09.2019 came to be passed and the order was forwarded to the 1^st respondent along with the cheque for Rs.22,210/-.

¶31

The petitioner corporation filed a petition under Section 33 (2)

¶32

(B) before the 2^nd respondent. The same was numbered as AP.No.130

¶33

of 2019.

¶34

4/8

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

W.P.No.25087 of 2021

¶37

The 2^nd respondent after hearing the petitioner as well as the 1^st

¶38

respondent dismissed the approval petition against which the petitioner is before this Court. The 2^nd respondent had held that the domestic enquiry was conducted in a proper fashion. However, with reference to the issue as to whether the prima facie case has been made out, the 2^nd respondent has held that the prima facie case has not been proved. The 2^nd respondent had taken note of the fact that the 1^st respondent had informed the Branch Manager about the leave of absence.

¶39

The 1^st respondent would submit that since he was unwell he

¶40

had submitted his leave application to the Branch Manager and it is only thereafter that he had taken a medical treatment. This fact has not been taken into consideration during the domestic enquiry. Therefore, the allegations of the petitioner that the leave of the 1^st respondent was unauthorised one has not been proved.

¶41

5/8

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

W.P.No.25087 of 2021

¶44

In these circumstances the 2^nd respondent had come to the conclusion that the prima facie case has not been made out. Despite knowing that the 1^st respondent was unwell and therefore could not attend his work, the dismissal order is nothing but a vindictive action. Therefore, the 2^nd respondent has rightly dismissed the same and this Court sees no reasons to hold otherwise.

¶45