The need for concrete evidence to prove charges and the disparity in applying the same yardstick to employees of different educational backgrounds.

The writ petitioners were appointed as Salesman and Bar Assistant respectively, in TASMAC retail Shop No.694 at Chennai South. A perusal of the impugned orders would show that when there was a raid conducted on 30.3.2007, it was found that there was adulteration in the liquor bottles with water and the said staff members were placed under suspension.

2. It is stated that in the enquiry conducted by the respondents, the petitioner in W.P.No.2038 of 2009, viz., E.Chinnappan had given an explanation that he was not involved in the adulteration process and that the adulteration was committed because of his negligence. In the explanation submitted by the petitioner in W.P.No.2475 of 2009, viz., M.Ramasamy, he is stated to have disowned his responsibility in the adulteration process, further stating that due to medical reasons, he was not available in the shop and came to the shop only when the inspection was conducted. The impugned orders of termination came to be passed against the petitioners on the basis that the petitioners have admitted their involvement in the adulteration process and relying upon the report submitted by the experts, wherein it was found that an adulteration had been effected in the liquor bottles.

3. Even though in the impugned orders, it has been stated that within 30 days, the petitioners could file an appeal before the appellate authority, the petitioners have raised certain vital points regarding the nature of enquiry conducted, which shows that principles of natural justice have not been followed in its proper sense.

4. As far as the alleged confession stated to have been made by the petitioner in W.P.No.2038 of 2009, a reading of the letter given by the petitioner shows that he has stated that he has nothing to do with the adulteration, but at the same time, he has admitted his negligence, which cannot be a ground to decide that it is a confession given by the petitioner. In the explanation given by the petitioner in W.P.No.2475 of 2009, he is stated to have disowned his responsibility in the adulteration process. In any event, there is absolutely no evidence to show that the petitioners were involved in the adulteration charge.

5. It is relevant to point out that a Division Bench of this Court, sitting in the Madurai Bench, had an occasion to deal with the writ appeal preferred by the TASMAC, in W.A. (MD.) No.27 of 2009 dated 21. 2009, wherein similar contentions were raised by the TASMAC, viz., such confessions should be taken as the proof against the shop staff by relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in 1997 (7) SCC 332 (Dharmarathmakra Raibahadur Arcot Ramaswamy Mudaliar Educational Institution v. Educational Appellate Tribunal). This case of the Apex Court was referring to a Professor working in an educational institution, who is stated to have made certain confession, based on which the termination order came to be passed. But, the Division Bench has held that the confession statement made by a highly educated person holding a responsible post of a Professor cannot be equated to that of these sort of Salesmen working in TASMAC and held the same yardstick cannot be followed. The Division Bench, while confirming the order of the learned single Judge directing reinstatement, has observed in paragraph No.4, which reads as follows:-

"4. When the respondent herein came forward with the writ petition contending that the said statement dated 14. 2005 was not voluntary and when we peruse the said statement dated 14. 2005, we are convinced that it would have been practicably not possible for the respondent to have written such a detailed statement running into 1 ½ pages in typing while admitting his guilt. Therefore, when suspicion looms large in accepting the so-called statement dated 14. 2005 said to have been given by the respondent herein, the learned Judge was perfectly justified in permitting the appellants to initiate proper disciplinary action in accordance with law. In those cir