Adherence to principles of natural justice, including the disclosure of charges, marking of documents, and granting adequate opportunity, is essential in disciplinary proceedings.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the dismissal order made in Na.Ka.Ar.V.2/1078/2015 dated 07.10.2015 on the file of the third respondent and consequential order in Se.Mu.No.219/2018/A dated 28.08.2018 on the file of the second respondent and subsequent order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings made in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No. R1/8437/2018 dated 26.10.2018 and quash the same and direct the third respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with full back wages, continuity of service, consequential and other attendant benefits.)

1. The Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Certiorarified Mandamus seeking interference with an order of dismissal dated 07.10.2015 passed by the third respondent and the consequential order of the conferment passed by the second respondent on 28.08.2018 and the final order passed by the first respondent confirming both the aforementioned orders and dated 26.10.2018 in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No. R1/8437/2018 and seeking reinstatement of the petitioner in service with full back wages, continuity of service, consequential and all other attendant benefits.

2. The petitioner was working as Supervisor in TASMAC shop in retail vending IMFL Shop No. 9254. He joined duty on 01.01.2004. On 10.04.2015, the second respondent, the Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., Salem, had made a surprise inspection of the aforementioned vending shop of the petitioner where the petitioner was Supervisor. At that particular point of time, the petitioner was away and he claims that he was in the Bank. The sales man S.Krishnamoorthy was available. The inspection had been completed even before the petitioner could come back and the petitioner was asked to sign in the notes prepared during the course of the inspection. Thereafter, on the next day, ie., on 11.04.2015, the petitioner was asked to come over to the office of the third respondent, District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., Thiruvannamalai District. He was issued with a relieving order stating that he stood relieved from service with effect from 10.04.2015 by proceedings dated 10.04.2015 issued by the third respondent. There were various allegations against the petitioner.

3. This Court need not examine those facts because under Article 226 of the Constitution of India while examining an order of dismissal, it is the procedure adopted which can be reviewed by this Court and not the order passed. If the procedure is not proper, then naturally there will be a consequential interference with the order passed by the respondents.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed on record the charges which have been framed against the petitioner and also filed copy of the charge memo. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 10.04.2015 and on the same day, ie., on 10.04.2015, the charge memo was also issued.

5. The reasons for suspension were nine in number in the suspension order. The same 9 reasons were incorporated in the charge memo. The 7th charge was that the petitioner had violated the directions of the higher officials. It was not given, who the higher officials were and it was not mentioned as to how the petitioner violated the directions of the higher officials. The 8th charge was that the TASMAC shop was managed in violation of rules. The specific violation was not mentioned in that particular charge. The 9th charge was that the petitioner was very casual during the period of service. Again the details had not been given. The first, second and third charges required examination and an enquiry to be conducted. They stated that brandy bottles were found open and it was suspected that it was either to dilute it with water or to sell it in smaller quantities. The fourth charge was that the petitioner had not discharged his work asSupervisor. The fifth charge related to a compl