The court emphasized the importance of upholding principles of natural justice and avoiding victimization in disciplinary proceedings.

1. The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 05.06.2003, in I.D. No. 212 of 1999, passed by the second respondent. The short facts of the case are as follows:-

The first respondent/employee was working as a driver in the petitioner Corporation at Tiruttani Depot and he was also a member in the Union and also its executive member. The Union had issued a notice to the petitioner Management regarding the proposed strike on 05.06.1993, 15 days in advance. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Tiruttani Police Station had arrested first respondent/employee at 04.30 a.m. on 05.06.1993. The petitioner management issued a suspension order dated 05.06.1993 and 06.06.1993 in order to victimize him. Further, he was issued a charge sheet dated 15.06.1993 and he submitted his explanation dated 27.10.1993 denying the charges and that they are false and vindictive in nature.

2. Not satisfied with the explanation, the petitioner Management had conducted a domestic inquiry. The first respondent had also participated in the inquiry and denied the charges levelled against him by adducing proper evidence and documents. But, the inquiry officer had found him guilty of the charges and gave a finding on 30.01.1996.

3. Based on the inquiry officer's report, the petitioner Management had issued a second show cause notice to the first respondent/employee. Considering the nature of charges, enquiry findings and previous history, the petitioner Management passed a final order dated 03.10.1996 and stopped the increment of the first respondent/employee for three years.

4. Therefore, the first respondent/employee had raised a an industrial dispute u/s 2A(2) of I.D. Act stating that the punishment awarded to him is partial and against the provisions of the standing orders and also against the principles of natural justice. Since the conciliation culminated in failure, the conciliation officer sent a failure report to the Government upon which the Government had referred the dispute to the Principal Labour Court, Chennai. Hence, the first respondent/employee prayed to set aside the order passed by the petitioner management dated 03.10.1996.

5. The petitioner Management filed a detailed counter affidavit stating that they are the State owned Transport Corporation and engaged in the operation of transport services for the convenience of travelling public. The first respondent/employee was employed as a driver attached to Tiruttani Depot. On 05.06.1993, the first respondent/employee failed to attend his duty and participated in a protest at Thekkalur with others. Due to the agitation, the Corporation was unable to operate the buses in the permitted routes and the public had suffered much hardship. In order to maintain law and order, the Police arrested the persons, who participated in the agitation including the first respondent/employee.

6. Based on the report, he was suspended from duty and disciplinary action was initiated against him and a charge memo was issued to him, for which he had submitted his explanation and requested the petitioner Management to permit him to resume his duty.

7. Considering his representation, the petitioner Management had revoked the order of suspension without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings pending against him. In order to provide him an opportunity, a domestic enquiry was ordered. The first respondent/ employee had also participated in the inquiry and the inquiry was conducted in a fair and impartial manner, following the principles of natural justice. The inquiry officer, after carefully going through the material evidences and records, had held that the charges levelled against the first respondent/employee were proved.

8. Based on the findings of the inquiry officer, a second show cause notice was issued to him. But, the explanation offered by him was found to be not satisfactory and unacceptable. Hence, the petitioner Management came to the conclusion to impose a punishmen