The inquiry into the dismissal was deemed unfair and resulted in a one-time compensation of Rs.2,00,000 to the legal heirs instead of reinstatement due to procedural lapses.

ORDER :

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

The Writ Petition is filed challenging the award in A.P.No.272 of 2012 whereby, the second respondent refused to grant approval for the order of punishment of dismissal from service passed by the petitioner / Management.

2.Upon perusing the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and hearing Mr.Aswin, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Management, the grievance of the Management is that D.Alexander, the workman originally involved in this case joined duty with the petitioner / Management on temporary basis on 11.11.2007. He worked for only about eight months and was unauthorisedly absent from 20.07.2008. A report in this regard was received from the concerned branch on 22.07.2011 and thereafter, a charge memo was issued on 27.07.2011. No explanation whatsoever was admitted by the workman. However, a domestic enquiry was ordered and in the enquiry the workman participated.

3.It is the case of the workman that he fell down from a two-wheeler and got fits and therefore, he was taking treatment and he became well only in the year 2012. However, the medical records that was produced did not support the said stand. The enquiry officer therefore, returned the finding that the charge as proved. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority considered the further explanation to second show cause notice and passed an order of dismissal on 02.11.2012. Thereafter, the approval petition was filed before the second respondent immediately within six days. The authority by the order impugned in the Writ Petition rejected the approval by an order dated 29.11.2017. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. Pending the Writ Petition, on 21.03.2021, the workman also since died and the legal heirs are impleaded as respondent No.3 and 4 and they are contesting the matter.

4.Mr.Aswin, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the second respondent considered all the five questions as required to be considered by him as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalla Ram Vs. DCM Chemical Works [ AIR 1978 SC 1004 ] and answered all the five questions in favour of the workman. With reference to the first question whether the domestic enquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner, the finding that was made is that it was not. It was given only on the basis that the enquiry proceedings were not marked or produced before the second respondent. On the other hand it can be seen that the basic report was produced as Ex.P1, Charge memorandum was Ex.P2, the findings of the enquiry in Ex.P3, the enquiry notice in Ex.P4, explanation to the enquiry notice as Ex.P5 and second show cause notice as Ex.P6 and explanation to second show cause notice as Ex.P7 and the order of punishment as Ex.P8.

5.A perusal of the enquiry report itself would reveal the day to day proceedings in the enquiry and therefore, it can be seen that due opportunity has been granted to the workman and the finding in this regard is perverse. The second question that was addressed by the second respondent with regard to whether any prima-facie case is made out on the basis of acceptable evidence is again incorrect. The Management witness was examined and it was duly proved that the workman was unauthorisedly absent from 20.07.2008. Therefore, the finding in this regard is perverse. The third question whether the action amounted to victimisation or not the second respondent went into the question of adequacy of the punishment and on that basis held that it is a harsh punishment and therefore answered the question in favour of