Permission to cross-examine witness through lawyer granted.

D. Murugesan, J.

In W.P. No. 17494 of 2000 the petitioner has challenged the order of the 2nd respondent enquiry officer denying the assistance of a lawyer to the petitioner recorded in the enquiry proceedings dated 4.10.2000 held in respect of charge memo bearing No. 4027/A1/2000, dated 20.4.2000 issued by the 1st respondent and consequently direct the respondents to give the petitioner assistance of a lawyer in the domestic enquiry.

In W.P. No. 1253 of 2001 the petitioner has challenged the proceedings of the 2nd respondent enquiry officer recorded in the enquiry proceedings dated 19.1.2001 held in respect of charge memo dated bearing No. 4027/A1/2000, dated 20.4.2000 issued by the 1st respondent and consequently for a direction to the respondents to proceed with the enquiry only after affording opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine management witnesses.

Since the parties to both the writ petitions are one and the same and the issue involved are similar in nature, both the writ petitions are taken up together for hearing and disposal. The facts as contained in the affidavit filed in W.P. No. 17494 of 2000 are as follows.

The petitioner joined the service in Tamil Nadu Industrial Development Corporation Limited during December, 1976 as an Accountant. During April, 1977 the petitioner was deputed to the 1st respondent/Corporation without his consent and his services were also absorbed in the 1st respondent/Corporation with effect from April, 1981 without his consent. On promotion the petitioner is working as Manager (Finance) in the registered office of the 1st respondent/Corporation and the petitioner has put in 24 years of unblemished record of service in the 1st respondent/Corporation.

On 20.4.2000 the petitioner fell suddenly ill as he developed pain in the stomach in the late evening. He left the office in the evening after discharging his work. Due to the same the petitioner had to be on leave as per the advice of his doctor and the petitioner had also informed about the illness to the 1st respondent in his letter dated 24.4.2000. The petitioner also requested the 1st respondent to sanction him medical leave for one month from 24.4.2000 enclosing the original medical certificate issued by a doctor. The said letter was acknowledged by the 1st respondent/Corporation on 25.4.2000 and the petitioner did not receive any reply. While that being so when the petitioner came to know that the 1st respondent was taking steps to reallocate the work of internal audit, he made a representation on 6.4.2000 expressing his difficulties in any reallocation being made. The petitioner did not receive any reply. However, the petitioner was kept under suspension by order dated 20.4.2000 and charge memo for the same was served on the petitioner on 29.4.2000. As per the charge memo, it was alleged that the petitioner refused to receive the office order No. 2/AI/2000, dated 29.4.2000 which was sought to be served on the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 29.4.2000 denying the charges. However, the 1st respondent initiated domestic enquiry with regard to the charges and appointed the 2nd respondent as the enquiry officer. The 2nd respondent held the enquiry on 7.8.2000 on which date the petitioner also attended the enquiry and the petitioner was informed that the 1st respondent is being represented by Mr. S. Chandrasekaran, Manager (Personnel and Administration) as Presenting Officer. Since the said S. Chandrasekaran is a bachelor degree holder in law and is well experienced in Conducting the domestic enquiry and had also represented the Corporation as Presenting Officer and enquiry officer, the petitioner in his letter dated 15.7.2000 requested the 1st respondent to allow the petitioner to have the assistance of a lawyer in the domestic enquiry and a copy of the said representation was also marked to the enquiry officer. The petitioner reiterated the said request in his subsequent letter dated 26.7.2000 follo