The court upheld the refusal of dismissal approval based on insufficient domestic enquiry and procedural irregularities, emphasizing the necessity of fairness and timeliness in such proceedings.

ORDER :

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent herein refusing to approve the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the Workman made in approval petition No.265 of 2004 dated 25.04.2006.

2. The brief factual matrix in which the Writ Petition arises is that the Workman was appointed as a driver on daily wage basis and thereafter was confirmed as a permanent employee in the year 1997. He has been regularized on 01.09.1998. While so, complaining stomach pain from 27.06.2003 the Workman was continuously absent. While so, it is the case of the management that the Workman remained unauthorisely absent and a charge memo dated 04.07.2003 was issued alleging that he is unauthorisely absent from 27.06.2003. It is the case of the Workman that he initially took treatment at Karthik Clinic, Dindugul and he obtained fitness certificate and reported for duty on 01.02.2004. It is the further case of the Workman that he was directed to appear before the medical board and he appeared before the medical board on 18.02.2004 and board examined and found that he was suffering from viral hepatitis with APD. He was given fitness certificate by the board to join duty on 18.02.2004 and the period was advised to be treated as medical leave. While so, the respondent proceeded with the enquiry and by a report dated 13.11.2003, the enquiry officer returned a finding that the charge has been proved and after issue of second show cause notice, the Workman was dismissed from service on 25.08.2004. Thereafter, the present petition is filed under Section 33 (2) (b) for Approval of the Punishment. The petition was resisted by the Workman by filing counter affidavit. The first respondent conducted an enquiry and the exhibits as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.15 were marked on behalf of the management and exhibits Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6 were marked on behalf of the Workman. Thereafter the first respondent considered the issue in accordance with the judgement of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in Lalla Ram Vs. The management of DCM Chemical Works Ltd and another reported in (1978 (1) LJ 507 SCC), [(1978 (1) LJ 507 SCC)] and found that the Management did not produce the entire enquiry records to conclude that the enquiry is fair and proper. It further found that even the one month salary was not paid in full and only after a period of one year the balance amount was paid to be Workman. He also found fault with the action of the management in filing the approval petition after a lapse of 30 days and on the three grounds, the approval was denied.

3. Heard Mr.Santhosh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Management, Mr.K.Surendran, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the first respondent and Mr.S.T.Varadharajulu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent Workman.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that the finding with reference to the domestic enquiry is perverse as the enquiry report is duly produced before the Authority. As far as the salary is concerned, it is only by an erroneous calculation lesser sum is paid and once that was brought to the notice of the management, the management also paid the balance also. The application is filed within a reasonable time and hence, cannot be held to be unreasonable.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Workman would submit that mere production of the enquiry report is not sufficient and the first respondent has to conclude that whether opportunities were granted to the Workman to cross examine the management witness and also to produce the sworn statements. In the absence thereof, th