Disciplinary action cannot be sustained if the basis for the charges is not legally sound.

1. The prayer sought for herein is for a writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order of the second respondent in his proceedings Pa. Mu. No. 103/10557/T2A/TSTC/ 2003 dated 22.09.2003 and the order of the first respondent in his proceedings Ku. No. A6/1523/T1/TSTC/2003 dated 3.3.2004 and quash the same.

2. The short facts which are required to be noticed for the disposal of this writ petition are as follows. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer in the erstwhile Anna Transport Corporation at Attur from 01.07.1995. The said Corporation has been subsequently renamed as Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, i.e. the respondents herein. While so, on 11.07.2003, a charge memo has been issued against the petitioner alleging that he has been unauthorisedly absent from 10.05.2003 and by virtue of such unauthorised absence, the respondent Corporation has been put under inconvenience to make alternative arrangements. Based on the charge memo, a notice has been issued and the respondents had conducted an ex-parte enquiry by appointing an enquiry officer. After taking into account the documents filed and the witnesses deposed on behalf of the management, they came to a conclusion that the charges framed against the petitioner had been proved. Pursuant to the said enquiry officer's report, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner by way of a second show cause notice, the disciplinary authority i.e. the second respondent has inflicted the punishment of removal of service on the petitioner on 22.09.2003, as against which, though the petitioner has preferred an appeal to the first respondent, the same was confirmed by the first respondent by an order dated 03.03.2004. Therefore, assailing the orders of punishment of removal of service dated 22.09.2003, as confirmed by the first respondent by an order dated 03.03.2004, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with the aforesaid prayer.

3. Mr. K. Sathish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the petitioner, because of ill health, could not attend duty from 10.05.2003 and he sought for medical leave from 10.05.2003 to 08.06.2003 and had made an application for sanctioning of medical leave in this regard to the respondents. However, without deciding the said application to sanction medical leave, the respondents issued the charge memo dated 11.06.2003, whereby framed charges as if the petitioner had been unauthorisedly absent from 10.05.2003.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that subsequently by a communication dated 18.06.2003, the respondents rejected the claim of the petitioner for sanction of medical leave for one month and on receipt of such communication rejecting the medical leave application of the petitioner, on 18.06.2003, the petitioner immediately made a request to the respondents on 24.06.2003 to sanction the said leave and also on 25.08.2003, requested the respondents to drop the proceedings initiated against him. However, without considering all those requests, the respondents had concluded the disciplinary proceedings ex-parte and ultimately inflicted the maximum punishment of removal of service for the alleged charge of unauthorised absence of the petitioner inspite of his application having been given to the respondents seeking for sanction of medical leave and therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

5. Per contra, Ms. Rajani Ramadoss, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Corporation would submit that, the petitioner has not been unauthorisedly absent for the first time and even prior to that, on several occasions he had been absent for duty and every time he would send a request belatedly for sanctioning of medical leave and in this regard, number of times he had been referred to medical board. Learned standing counsel would further submit that, just prior to the period in question, in the month of March-April 2003 also he sought for medical leave and