Disciplinary authority must furnish separate copy of inquiry report to delinquent before second show-cause notice, ensuring natural justice.

ORDER :

T.VINOD KUMAR, J. 

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and perused the record.

2. The petitioner, by the present Writ Petition, has assailed the action of the third respondent in issuing proceedings, dated 19.11.2013, as confirmed by the second respondent vide proceedings, dated 18.12.2015, which was further confirmed by the first respondent vide proceedings, dated 01.12.2016.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he was recruited as Shop Supervisor on contractual basis under the first respondent on 24.11.2003; that thereafter on 05.02.2004, his work was extended as additional charge of Area Supervisor of the Arcot Town; that on 25.05.2004, he was appointed as Physical Verification Officer in Shop No.11140, located at R.R. Road, Ranipet; that from the date of his appointment till date, he has been discharging his duties honestly and sincerely without any blemish and to the utmost satisfaction of his superior officials.

4. The petitioner also contended that his superior officials, being satisfied with his work, appointed him as Supervisor in Shop No.11213, Arakkonam; that while working as Supervisor in the said shop, one of the salesmen in the shop had stolen the cash from the sales account on two occasions; that he had intimated the same to the third respondent on 26.02.2013 and 12.06.2013; that on 05.11.2013, when he had gone to attend his father-in-law’s ceremony, he had received a phone call from the salesman informing him that inspection team of the respondents came to the shop for inspection and recorded that the salesman namely, Govindarajan, alone was on duty and another salesman namely, Lingeswaran, was absent from 15.10.2013 till date and instructed the salesman, who was present in the shop, to deposit the license amount on the seventh day of every month and informed him that the petitioner should appear before the District Manager, i.e., the third respondent on 06.11.2013; and that no further allegation or illegality was noticed.

5. The petitioner further contended that he had appeared before the third respondent and submitted his explanation for not being available in the shop on the day of inspection; and that the third respondent, finding the aforesaid explanation offered by the petitioner to be satisfactory, allowed the petitioner to continue to work as Supervisor in the same shop.

6. It is the further case of the petitioner that he had properly maintained the stock report, liability register and other relevant records regularly; that the third respondent, however, all of a sudden, placed him under suspension on 19.11.2013 for not discharging his duty on 05.11.2013; that the third respondent further stated that when he had inspected the shop on 05.11.2013, he had found adulteration of liquor with water in addition to funnel, needle and empty caps which were found in the shop; that the salesman admitted that the petitioner is aware of the said malpractice; that based on the statement of the salesman, the third respondent sought an explanation from the petitioner; and that the petitioner had given explanation on 18.11.2013.

7. The petitioner further contended that the third respondent, not being satisfied with the explanation, had issued suspension order, even though the petitioner had attended his duties till 21.11.2013 and signed the Attendance Register; that thereafter, he was issued with charge memo, dated 13.03.2014 claiming that at the time of inspection of Shop No.11213 by the third respondent, it was found mixing of water with liquor and that the authorities also found funnel, needle and empty caps in the shop; and that the petitioner, being the Supervisor of the shop, failed to discharge his duties properly.

8. It is the further case of the petitioner that on 10.05.2014, the Assistant Manager of the third respondent gave notice to the petitioner for submitting explanation to the allegation; that after giving explanation, the authorities