Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice and require cogent evidence; failure of the authority to produce documents and examine witnesses invalidates the outcome.

ORDER :

HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.

The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 21.04.2014 bearing Reference No. Na.Ka.No.36041/E3(2)/03, passed by the first respondent. By the said order, the petitioner, who was working as Bee Fieldman Grade-I in the Gudalur Khadar Shop, was removed from service for the alleged misappropriation of Board funds amounting to Rs.2,85,485/-, resulting in a shortage of stock in the Gudalur Khadar Shop, and Rs.4,13,883/- towards loss of funds resulting in a shortage of stock in the Udagai Carpentry and Blacksmith Unit.

2. The petitioner, while working as Bee Fieldman Grade-I, was issued with a charge memo. The charge memo dated 17.12.2003 reads as follows:

“Charge No.1

A fake loan list were prepared in the name of Gudalur Government Hospital Employees and the Board funds amounting to Rs.64,519/- was misappropriated.

Charge No.2

Fake loan lists were prepared as if the teachers of Fatima Girls High School, Gudalur, Khadi borrowed Khadi loan and embezzled Rs.20,379/- from the Board.

Charge No.3

He prepared fake lists as if teachers of Saint Maria Annai Primary School, Gudalur have taken loans and embezzled Rs.8,224/- of the Board funds.

Charge No.4

Rs.56,107/- in the name of 12 private individuals were collected and misappropriated the Board funds by preparing a fake list of loans in the name of 12 private individuals.

Charge No.5

Fake loan lists were prepared in the name of individuals and the Board funds Rs.1,36,256/- has been handled.

Charge No.6

While working in Gudalur Khadi Store caused loss to the Board by incurring huge stock shortage amounting to Rs.3,26,195/-.

Charge No.7

In Udagai Carpentry Unit, there is shortage of stock of Rs.87,688.50 and he caused loss to the Board.

Charge No.8

The said bogus lists were prepared in the name of employees and other individuals working in other departments which tarnished the reputation of the Board and caused substantial financial loss to the Board.

Charge No.9

By committing above mentioned eight charges, he failed in his basic responsibility and duty.”

3. The petitioner, who was called upon to submit his explanation to the show cause notice, requested the respondents to furnish the relevant documents. The respondents contend that all the documents sought for were furnished on 18.09.2006 and 19.09.2006. Despite furnishing the relevant documents , the petitioner demanded to furnish irrelevant documents with the intention of prolonging the enquiry proceedings. The respondents further contend that, despite repeated reminders, the petitioner refused to cooperate with the enquiry and also did not appear before the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer thereafter conducted the enquiry and submitted a report holding that the charges were proved.

4. The Disciplinary Authority issued the second show cause notice to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why the enquiry report should not be accepted and appropriate punishment should not be imposed. The petitioner submitted further explanation denying the charges and stated that the relevant documents were not furnished and that he was forcibly made to work as Manager despite having no experience, and therefore the charges against him are without substance. The Disciplinary Authority, after recording the charges, the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the second show cause notice, passed the impugned order. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.

5. Mr. A. Immanuel, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that, in terms of Regulation 34 of the Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board S