For awarding major punishment of withholding two increments normal procedure not followed.

P. Sathasivam, J.

1. The petitioner has approached this Court to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the first respondent dated 23.6.1988 in RC A9/05370/88 as confirmed by the second respondent in this order dated 9.11.1988 by issuance of a writ of certiorari, on various grounds.

2. According to the petitioner, when he was working as a time scale Bill Clerk under the control of the first respondent on 25.2.1988, he was suspended from service for certain alleged irregularities in the Chief Minister's Nutritious Meal Scheme at Century Flour Mills' Godown. Thereafter, on 25.3.1988, he was served with a charge memo alleging pilfering and under-weighment in the stocks allotted to the Chief Minister's Nutritious meal centres and thereby gained excess stocks for personal benefit. He was also charged with misappropriation of stocks and proved to be an untrust-worthy employee of the Corporation. Along with the said charge memo a Questionnaire form was furnished to him in which he was asked to specify whether an oral enquiry was required in his presence and whether he intended to examine witnesses on both sides. On receipt of the charge memo, he gave an explanation on 5.4.1988 denying the charges and submitted the Questionnaire form duly filled in, in which he not only wanted to have a perusal of certain documents, but also specified the names of various persons who should be produced before him for his cross-examination. It is further stated that after the receipt of the explanation, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the enquiry into the charges and the enquiry was posted to 16.5.1988 and then to 10.6.1988. In the enquiry proceedings, he denied the charges levelled against him. Thereafter, however, the Enquiry Officer simply recorded his statement and closed the enquiry proceedings. No documents were marked in support of the charges and no oral evidence was let in respect of the charges. He was denied the opportunity to peruse the documents and also the benefit of cross-examination of those persons who were to depose against him. A farce of an enquiry was held and the Enquiry Officer has submitted a report. Based on the said report, the first respondent though concluded that a severe punishment was warranted, yet, imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect and also treating the period of suspension as substantive 'suspension' in and by his proceedings dated 23.6.1988. Thereupon, he preferred an appeal to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, who in his proceedings dated 9.11.1988 summarily rejected his appeal. He has filed the present writ petition questioning both the orders referred to above.3. Respondents filed a counter-affidavit wherein it is contended that while the petitioner was working as Bill Clerk in the Century Flour Mills Godown during the month of February, 1988, the Vigilance Cell of the Head Office intercepted the lorry bearing Registration No. TMT 5766 carrying foodgrains from the said godown to the C.M.N.M.P. centres for delivery on 5.2.1988 and noticed excess stock of rice palmolin in the said vehicle. The excess stock of rice and other commodities reported are quite alarming as per the records of the godown, whereas only a lesser quantity of stocks were sought to be transported. Unless there was under weighment in the stocks allotted to the Noon-meal centres there cannot be any possibility to gain the excess stock. Thus, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 25.2.1988 and two charges have been framed. The charge memo was served upon the petitioner on 29.3.1988. He has submitted an explanation on 5.4.1988. An enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the enquiry. In the said enquiry, it was held that charges are proved. After examining the explanation and findings of the Enquiry Officer along with the connected records, a punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of 2 years with cumulative effect was ordered apart fr