Failure to issue a second show cause notice before considering past misconduct in disciplinary action violates natural justice, warranting modification of punishment.

ORDER :

(S. SRIMATHY, J.)

The present writ petition filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order, dated 08.04.2013, passed by the second respondent and consequential impugned order dated 29.06.2015, passed by the first respondent and to quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service in the second respondent Society with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits.

2. The petitioner was appointed as a Salesman in the 2^nd respondent Society and he was working in a Fair Price Shop (Pavithram-II). The petitioner was placed under suspension on 13.02.2012 by the then Special Officer since there was contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. Thereafter, a charge memo, dated 27.09.2012, was issued framing two charges. In the charges, it has been stated that there is deficiency in the stocks such as rice and other commodities which is meant for public distribution system. Before submitting the explanation, the petitioner sought for various documents but the same were not furnished. The petitioner waited for some time and thereafter, submitted a detailed explanation wherein it is stated that the goods were damaged due to rats and hence, there is deficiency in the stocks. Further, the shop is situated in the place wherein water stagnation occurs regularly, thereby, the stock was damaged, consequently, there is deficiency in the stocks. Thereafter, domestic enquiry was conducted. In the enquiry report, it is stated that charges are proved. Based on the enquiry report, the 2^nd respondent, vide order, dated 08.04.2013, had terminated the service of the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is that the domestic enquiry was conducted without providing relevant document and without giving proper opportunity. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a statutory revision under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act . The contention of the petitioner is that without considering the grounds, the punishment was confirmed, vide order, dated 29.06.2015. Aggrieved over the same, the present writ petition is filed. Pending writ petition, the writ petitioner died on 13.05.2020. Thereafter, his legal heirs, i.e., his wife and two sons were substituted in the writ petition as petitioners 2 to 4.

3. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner has committed the same offences regularly and habitually. On one such occasion, he was caught red handed while smuggling 23 bags of rice and he was arrested by the Police. Punishments were imposed on the petitioner several times for such offences. He was imposed with a punishment of increment cut for one year without cumulative effect and the suspension period was considered as duty period and he was pardoned. On one such occasion, he was dismissed from service but he was reinstated in service in the year 1999 again. In spite of several opportunities, the petitioner had not changed the attitude. Therefore, finally, the respondents thought it would be fit to dismiss the petitioner from service. Hence, the impugned order was passed. The enquiry was conducted after giving sufficient opportunities and there is no violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

4. After considering the rival submissions, this Court is of the considered opinion that while considering the past history of the petitioner, the respondents ought to have mentioned in the show cause notice and called for objections from the petitioner. In fact, the respondents are bound to issue show cause notice indicating the imposition of major punishment and call for objections from the petitioner. But in the present case the respondents failed to issue do so. While contesting the revision, one of the grounds stated by the petitioner is that before imposing the major punishment, the respondents have not issued the second show cause notice.