Procedural fairness in disciplinary proceedings and the significance of considering the findings of the Enquiry Officer in employment disputes.

1. The writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service and quash the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka. No. 253/2011/AA3, dated 19.5.2011, confirming the order passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka. No. A1/8010/2010, dated 13.10.2010.

2. The petitioner was appointed as a Shop Salesman in Retail Vending Shops in Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., (TASMAC). While the petitioner was employed as a Shop Salesman in Retail Vending Shop No.436 at Shenoy Nagar, Amaindakarai, Chennai, he was issued with an order of suspension dated 26.12.2009 for the adulteration done in the liquor bottles on the basis of an inspection conducted on 12.12.2009. The petitioner further submitted that while the inspection was conducted by the Inspection Team, he went on leave due to illness. However, the petitioner was served with the charge memo dated 12.1.2010 alleging the charges levelled against him.

3. The respondents issued a notice dated 8.3.2010 directing the petitioner to attend the enquiry on 15.4.2010. After conducting the enquiry, the Enquriy Officer submitted his report on 21.5.2010. Based on the Enquiry report, the second respondent passed the order of termination dated 13.10.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent on 22.10.2010. Then, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.1236 of 2011 challenging the termination order dated 13.10.2010 and the same was disposed of by an order dated 2.2.2011 directing the first respondent to consider and dispose of the appeal pending before him and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law. The first respondent provided personal hearing on 19.4.2011 and the petitioner submitted his explanation to him. Thereafter, the first respondent by his order dated 19.5.2011 confirmed the termination order dated 13.10.2010 passed by the second respondent. Hence, the writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

4. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents.

5. Heard Mr.K.Sasindran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.Muthuraj, learned counsel for the respondents.

6. The inspection was conducted on 12.12.2009. Admittedly, the petitioner was not in duty on 12.12.2009. In the said inspection, it was found that there was an adulteration in the liquor bottles. Thereafter, another inspection was conducted on 22.12.2009 and it was found that there was a shortage of stock to the tune of Rs.81,125/- and the same was recovered from the shop Supervisor on 24.12.2009. Charge Memo dated 12.1.2010 was issued to the petitioner based on the inspection conducted on 12.12.2009 and 22.12.2009.

7. The crux of the allegation is that the petitioner was responsible for the adulteration made in the liquor bottles on 12.12.2009 and that he was also responsible for the shortage of stock to the tune of Rs.81,125/-, which was found on 22.12.2009. An enquiry was conducted. After conducting the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has submitted his report on 21.5.2010. The Enquiry Officer held in his finding that the petitioner cannot be held liable for the charges levelled against him based on the inspection on 12.12.2009 as he was on leave on that day. The Enquiry Officer further held that when the shortage amount of Rs.81,125/- has been paid by all the employees, there is no loss to TASMAC and hence, the petitioner could be pardoned for this charge as there is no loss to TASMAC. However, the petitioner and four others, who were employed in the shop were dismissed from service by the Disciplinary Authority by the common order dated 13.10.2010 based on the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The Disciplinary Authority proceeded as if all charges were held proved by the Enquiry Officer.

8. As noted above, the Enquiry Officer has held that the charges based on the inspection on 12.12.2009 are not proved. If the Disciplinary Authority decided to come to a different conclusion from tha