The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a practical and pragmatic approach, the establishment of a prima facie case, and the need for clear findings and reasoning in statutory orders.

ORDER :

The order passed by the first respondent in Approval Petition in A.P.No.406 of 2011 dated 25.10.2013, is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner is the Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Limited.

3. The petitioner states that the second respondent-workman was a driver and did not report for duty regularly and remained unauthorisedly absent from 28.11.2008 onwards. Departmental disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the second respondent-workman, charge memo was issued and departmental enquiry was conducted. The second respondent-workman was imposed with the punishment of removal from service.

4. The provisional conclusion to impose the penalty of removal from service was confirmed by the Competent Authority and the second respondent-workman was removed from service vide order dated 27.12.2010. Thereafter, an Approval Petition was filed in A.P.No.406 of 2011 under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

5. The Competent Authority-first respondent adjudicated the issues with reference to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Lalla Ram vs. DCM Chemical Works Ltd [(1978) 3 SCC 1]. Accordingly, the first respondent formulated five issues in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court, cited supra and, in respect of the first issue, made a finding that the domestic enquiry was conducted in compliance with the rules of natural justice.

6. Regarding the second issue, the first respondent found that the finding of the Enquiry Officer is without having any acceptable evidence and the charges were not held proved based on the evidence. Regarding the third issue, the first respondent held that there was no victimisation or otherwise. As far as the fourth issue is concerned, the one month salary was also paid to the workman. Regarding the fifth issue, the findings of the first respondent is that there was a delay of one month in filing the Approval Petition before the Competent Authority-first respondent. Regarding the delay of one month in filing an Approval Petition, the same shall be condoned.

7. As far as the second issue is concerned, this Court is of an opinion that the prima facie case against the workman acceptable or not is to be decided based on the documents and the evidences available on record. If the first respondent could not form an opinion in this regard, then he is empowered to call for the records from the petitioner-Corporation and verify the materials available on records, so as to arrive a conclusion whether there is any prima facie materials available or not for the purpose of initiation of departmental disciplinary proceedings.

8. Contrarily, based on the findings of the Enquiry Officer and without examining all the relevant records, the first respondent ought not to have formed a final opinion. Practically it may not be possible to form a final opinion without examining the connected records. In such circumstances, wherever a doubt arises in the mind of the Competent Authority, then he is empowered to call for the records from the employer concerned examine or scrutinise the same and thereafter form a final opinion regarding the justifiability or prima facie case for the purpose of initiation of departmental disciplinary proceedings.

9. Practical and pragmatic approach is required on the part of the Competent Authority, while adjudicating such issues. Mechanical approach would result in miscarriage of justice. It is not as if the Competent Authority can merely verify the findings of the Enquiry Officer in his report and form a final opinion with reference to the prima facie case for the purpose of initiation of departmental disciplinary proceedings. Prima facie materials may be available in the files and therefore, the Authorities are bound to call for the records from the employer concerned scrutinise such records and thereafter arrive a conclusion, whether materials are available on record for initiation of disc