The G.O.Ms.No.68 covers disciplinary proceedings, and the Commissioner of Sugar is the competent authority for initiating disciplinary proceedings.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the respondents pursuant to the termination order issued by the third respondent in brK.e.vz;.gm/923/2016/gp5 dated 18.11.2017 and quash the same and consequently direct the third respondent to reinstate the petitioner in his original employment with all the attendant benefits.

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the respondents pursuant to the termination order issued by the third respondent in brK.e.vz;.gm/754/2016/gp5 dated 18.11.2017 and quash the same and consequently direct the third respondent to reinstate the petitioner in his original employment with all the attendant benefits.)|

Common Order:

1. The Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.2709 of 2018 is filed to quash the impugned punishment order dated 18.11.2017 with a consequential direction to reinstate the petitioner in his original employment with all attendant benefits.

2. The petitioner was qualified with B.Sc., Agriculture degree and was appointed in National Co-operative Sugar Mills as Cane Officer on 01.08.1988. Thereafter, transferred to the first respondent Mill on 16.06.1997. Then on 20.07.2000, again he was transferred to NPKRR Cooperative Sugar Mills and worked there till 21.09.2005. Again, transferred to the third respondent Mill from 22.09.2005 and was working till 12.11.2015. The petitioner is a Grade ''B'' Officer as per G.O.Ms.No.68 Industries (MIC.2) 2011 dated 01.03.2011 and the said G.O. is published in Tamil Nadu Gazette Notification on 26.10.2011.

3. In respect of revival of common cadre system for the officers of the Cooperative and Public Sector Sugar Mills and as per the above said G.O., the Commissioner of Sugar Mills will be the “Common Cadre Authority” for ''A'' and ''B'' cadre officers. As per the rules and regulations of Tamil Nadu Sugar Corporation Limited, the respondent sugar mill is governed by the Board of Directors nominated by the State Government.

4. In the year 2015, some irregularities were found in the Mill, where it is alleged that some Mill employees and Sugarcane farmers were involved in the scam. Based on the complaints and news items published in the Daily Magazines, the respondents have initiated action against the persons involved in the scam. The petitioner and 12 other employees were suspended on 12.11.2015 and a charge memo, dated 16.04.2016 was issued after a delay of 5 months. On receipt of the charge sheet, the petitioner submitted a representation to the third respondent requesting to provide the relevant documents for submitting explanation to the charge memo. The respondents did not serve the copies but directed the petitioner to visit the Mill premises and inspect the records and take notes of it and time is granted only for two days. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his explanation. The petitioner was hoping that on receipt of explanation, the respondents would drop the proceedings. Hence, he did not challenge the charge memo and the suspension order. But the respondents appointed the fourth respondent as an enquiry officer. The fourth respondent in a summary manner, conducted an enquiry and submitted a report without referring any proper documents and without examining any witness. Based on the enquiry officer’s report, the petitioner was terminated from service on 18.11.2017. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner preferred an Appeal before the second respondent on 14.12.2017. But till date, no enquiry was conducted by any officials.

5. The contention of the petitioner is that the Sugar Mill accounts have been audited every year by the reputed auditors and annual report was published every year by the TASCO (Tamil Nadu Sugar Mills Corporation Limited). In the said audit report, no loss was reported. The audit report has not found any irregularities for