COMMON ORDER

Though, there are two individual writ petitions filed by the two petitioners, the issues, allegations and the transactions involved are one and the same. Thus, both the writ petitions are disposed of by way of a common order.

2. At the outset, it may be relevant to state that the facts are identical except for the following dates viz.,

3. The petitioners joined the service of the Respondent Corporation as Shift Engineers, thereafter they were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) in-charge of the Modern Rice Mill, Adavathur. Whileso, the petitioners were suspended from service on 25.04.1989 and was thereafter issued a Charge Memo dated 28.07.1989, wherein 3 charges were framed against the petitioners. The crux of the charges being that the petitioners along with 5 others had prepared bogus acknowledgments and false entries had been made to show that raw paddy was dispatched from Trichy to MRM, Adavathur and fed into silo at Adavathur on 17.04.2018, although no raw paddy was dispatched/ received on the said date. In respect of the very same facts, a Criminal Case was lodged which ultimately ended in acquittal of the petitioners and 5 others by the Principal Sessions Judge, Trichy vide order dated 22.06.1995 in Criminal Appeal Nos.125 and 133 of

1993.

4. The petitioners responded to the Charge Memo by submitting their explanations. However, orders of dismissal was passed vide order dated 29.10.1991 by the Managing Director of the Respondent Corporation. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed a suit before the Additional District Munsiff, Trichy, which was decreed in favour of the petitioners. The matter was carried by way of an appeal and the First Appellate Court reversed the order of the trial Court.

5. Being aggrieved by the order of the First Appellate Court, petitioners filed a Second Appeal before this Court in S.A.642 of 1998. The above Second appeal came to be disposed of by this Court after finding that the authorities of the Respondent Corporation had not complied with the procedure/ mandate contained in Para 4 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Employees Service Regulations, 1989 (hereinafter referred as "Regulation") and thus the Respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioners while granting liberty to the Respondent Corporation to conduct enquiry in accordance with the procedure set-out in the Regulations. It was found by this Court in S.A.No.642 of 1998 that no regular enquiry was conducted though a major penalty was imposed against the petitioners. In particular, Para 4 of the Regulation which contemplates examining of witnesses during enquiry and granting opportunity to cross examine the witnesses was not complied with. The learned Judge recorded that no witnesses were examined nor any document was marked as an exhibit. It appears that despite the directions of this Court in S.A.No.642 of 1998, the Respondent Corporation had failed to comply with the directions. It may therefore be relevant to extract the relevant portions of the said order:

“ 15. A mere perusal of paragraph Nos.3 and 4 of the Regulations, would demonstrate that during departmental enquiry, the witnesses should be examined in the presence of the delinquent official after furnishing necessary documents to him. Above all, due opportunity should be given to the delinquent official to cross-examine the witnesses. In this case, the perusal of Ex.A.24 would show that no such procedure had been followed in accordance with the aforesaid regulation. Surprisingly, no witness was examined during enquiry in the presence of the delinquent official despite as per Ex.A.24 itself, the pla