The court emphasized that disciplinary actions must obey principles of natural justice, including evidence for charges and payment of subsistence allowance during suspension; non-compliance voids sanctions.

ORDER :

HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.

1. In W.P. No.35377 of 2013, the petitioner challenges the order dated 06.09.2013 passed by the first respondent, whereby the order of dismissal dated 06.01.2012 issued by the second respondent, confirming the order dated 21.04.2010 passed by the third respondent dismissing the petitioner from service, was modified and substituted with removal from service.

2. In W.P. No.31606 of 2014, the Bank challenges the order dated 06.09.2013 passed by the first respondent, whereby the order of dismissal was modified and substituted with removal from service.

3. The petitioner joined service as a Clerk in the fourth respondent Bank on 11.01.1989 and was promoted as Secretary on 01.06.1993. The petitioner claims to have filed a complaint before the District Collector against the Board of Directors alleging various illegalities and irregularities, which allegedly resulted in one of the Directors assaulting him. According to the petitioner, on account of the said complaint, the Board of Directors victimised him by falsely alleging that he had absconded from service from 01.01.1998 to 05.06.1998 and, by Resolution dated 06.06.1998, terminated him from service.

4. The petitioner challenged the order dated 06.06.1998 before the Deputy Commissioner under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). By order dated 03.12.2001, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour set aside the termination order and directed the Bank to reinstate the petitioner into service.

5. On 18.05.2007, the petitioner was placed under suspension and the order of suspension was subsequently extended. Thereafter, the petitioner filed W.P. No.20973 of 2008 seeking payment of subsistence allowance from 18.05.2007. This Court directed the Bank to pay the subsistence allowance pending disposal of the writ petition. On account of non- compliance, the petitioner filed Contempt Petition No.304 of 2009.

6. In the meantime, the third respondent issued a charge memo dated 25.08.2008 containing two charges. The first charge alleged that the petitioner failed to hand over the records, thereby stalling the functioning of the Bank. The second charge related to dereliction of duties and responsibilities. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated 24.11.2006 and furnished a list of documents which, according to him, had not been handed over to him.

7. By order dated 15.06.2009, this Court directed the fourth respondent Bank to pay the subsistence allowance and restrained it from passing final orders until compliance. An amount of Rs.1,43,000/- towards subsistence allowance was paid only on 07.04.2010.

8. Subsequently, the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and submitted a report holding that the charges against the petitioner stood proved. The petitioner challenged the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Thereafter, the third respondent passed an order terminating the petitioner from service, which was confirmed by the second respondent/Appellate Authority. Subsequently, the first respondent modified the punishment of dismissal to that of removal from service.

9. Mr.R.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No.35377 of 2013 and for the third respondent in W.P.No.31606 of 2014, submitted that for the very same set of allegations, the petitioner had earlier been terminated from service and the said order of termination was set aside by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour. The said order has attained finality and, pursuant theret