Procedural violations in disciplinary proceedings render removal orders arbitrary and unenforceable, emphasizing the need for fair conduct in evidence presentation.

ORDER :

1. The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the order dated 02.03.2010 bearing Na.Ka.No.17526/E-4(1)/05 passed by the first respondent, and the order dated 16.08.2011 passed by the Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board, Kuralagam, Chennai, as communicated by the Deputy Director (in charge) of the Board. By the said orders, the petitioner, while serving as a Khadi Inspector in the Thuraiyur Carpentry and Blacksmith Workers Industrial Co-operative Society, was removed from service.

2. The petitioner, while serving as a Khadi Inspector, was issued with a charge memo dated 27.05.1996, alleging misappropriation of funds belonging to the Society as well as the Board. The petitioner submitted his explanation denying all the charges. As the explanation was found to be unsatisfactory, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the charges. After conducting the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding that all the 13 charges framed against the petitioner stood proved. Upon receipt of the enquiry report and the further explanation submitted by the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority held that the charges were proved and passed an order removing the petitioner from service.

3. The said order of removal was challenged before this Court in W.P. No.16277 of 2005. By order dated 13.11.2008, this Court set aside the order of removal and directed the first respondent to appoint either an Assistant Director or any other competent officer as Enquiry Officer and also to appoint a Presenting Officer to represent the Thuraiyur Carpentry and Blacksmith Workers Industrial Co-operative Society. This Court further observed that, though the registers were stated to have been produced during the enquiry proceedings, the documents had neither been marked nor had any witnesses been examined. Considering the number of charges levelled against the petitioner, this Court held that it was desirable for the Society to adduce both oral and documentary evidence.

4. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, Mr. S. Jayakumar, Assistant Director (Khadi and Village Industries), Trichy, was appointed as the Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner. He was directed to conduct the enquiry strictly in accordance with the procedures laid down under the Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board Service Regulations (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, by affording an opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine witnesses, by marking relevant documents, examining witnesses, and to submit the enquiry report within a period of two months.

5. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and submitted a report holding that 12 out of 13 charges framed against the petitioner stood proved. Upon receipt of the second show-cause notice, the petitioner submitted a further explanation denying the charges. The first respondent/Disciplinary Authority, after considering the further explanation, passed an order removing the petitioner from service. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent, as provided under Regulation 38 of the Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board Service Regulations, 1956. The Appellate Authority confirmed the order of removal passed by