The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to consider the petitioner's explanation and the violation of principles of natural justice in imposing the punishment.

1. The petitioner herein was an employee of the respondents. While the petitioner was working as a Junior Superintendent, a charge memo was issued on 30.11.1983 by the first respondent, on the ground that the petitioner has failed to inform about the malpractice committed by a Co-employee by name Rajagopalan. In pursuant to the said charge memo, the petitioner was dismissed in and by the order dated 05.03.1994, subject to the approval of the Jurisdictional Industrial Tribunal under Section 33 C(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act. However, the Industrial Tribunal has refused to approve the dismissal order in and by the order dated 13.07.1994. Challenging the same, the respondents filed a writ petition before this Court and as against the order of dismissal, a further appeal was preferred before the Honble Apex Court. The respondents further appeal was also rejected by the Honble Supreme Court in the year 1998. Accordingly, the order of termination passed against the petitioner dated 05.03.1994 was set aside.

2. Since even after the orders passed by the Honble Apex Court the petitioner was not reinstated, a writ petition was filed in W.P.No.1498 of 1999 praying to direct the respondents to reinstate with all consequential benefits. The writ petition was allowed by this Honble Court in and by his order dated 04.11.1999 as reported in (2001) 3 CTC 470 (T.Neethivilangan Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Unit I, Kumbakonam) directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all the benefits by granting liberty to take action in accordance with law. With reference to a pending criminal case, the petitioner was also given liberty to file suit for damages depending upon the criminal case filed against him.

3. Challenging the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court, an appeal was filed by the respondents in W.A.No.157 of 2000 which was also dismissed. Alleging noncompliance of the orders passed by this Court, the petitioner filed an application for contempt in Contempt Application No.450 of 2000. The respondents filed a further appeal before the Honble Supreme Court which was also dismissed as reported in (2001) 9 SCC 99 (Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Vs. Neethivilangan, Kumbakonam). Thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated on 16.07.2001 as Superintendent. Even though he was entitled to the post of Assistant General Manager, on 16.07.2001 itself the petitioner was suspended on the ground of pendency of the criminal case. Thereafter the contempt application was closed on 09.08.2001. The criminal cases filed against the petitioner in CC No.28/87 and 15/98 ended in aquittal by the judgment dated 21.06.2006. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 07.11.2007.

4. In the mean while charges have been framed against the petitioner on 07.12.1983 alleging that the petitioner has committed temporary misappropriation for a sum of Rs.630.60 being the provident fund contribution of the employees inasmuch as after having collected the said amount in the month of June 1983, he has remitted it only on 27.08.1983. An explanation was given by the petitioner stating that in view of the settlement arrived at between the employees and the respondents regarding the fixation of pay and in view of the further dispute regarding the date of the initial employment, the provident fund paid by the employees was not remitted and the same has been kept in a locker belonging to the respondents. It was further explained by the petitioner that after keeping the amount in the locker he has failed to remit the same to the concerned account which he did on 27.11.1993 belatedly. The Enquiry Officer found that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved inasmuch as the petitioner having received the said amount has not remitted it at the earliest. The Enquiry Officer has also relied upon the evidence of MW1 who was not originally cited as a witness to substantiate the case that the p