Dismissal invalid without evidence of bogus certificate and unexplained delay in approval petition under ID Act S.33(2)(b).

ORDER

The writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 02.08.2024 passed by the 2^nd respondent in Approval Petition No.50 of 2022 filed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

2. The case of the petitioner Corporation is that the 1^st respondent was appointed as a Driver on 05.09.2017 at the Vridhachalam Branch. At the time of appointment, the 1^st respondent had produced certain educational certificates, including an 8^th standard certificate. Subsequently, the said certificate was sent for verification and, upon verification, the competent educational authority reported that the certificate was bogus. Based on the same, a charge memo dated 08.02.2021 was issued to the 1^st respondent alleging submission of a bogus educational certificate at the time of appointment.

3. In the meantime, a criminal case was also registered against the 1^st respondent in Crime No.27 of 2021 on the file of Vridhachalam Police for offences under Sections 182, 465, 468, 471 and 420 IPC.

4. The 1^st respondent submitted his explanation on 18.10.2021. Therafter being unsatisfied with the explanation, a domestic enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer, by report dated 20.12.2021, held the charges as proved. Thereafter, a second show cause notice dated 27.12.2021 was issued, to which the 1^st respondent submitted his further explanation on 18.01.2022. Not being satisfied with the same, the petitioner Corporation dismissed the 1^st respondent from service by order dated 28.02.2022.

5. Thereafter, the petitioner Corporation filed Approval Petition No.50 of

2022 under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the 2^nd respondent. The said approval petition was rejected by the 2^nd respondent vide its order dated 02.08.2024 on the filmsy ground. Challenging the said rejection order dated 02.08.2024, the present writ petition has been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner Corporation submitted that the 1^st respondent was dismissed from service on 28.02.2022 after a full-fledged domestic enquiry in which the charges were held proved. He further submitted that without considering the documents marked as Exs.M1 to M10, the 2^nd respondent has erroneously came to the conclusion that enquiry proceedings were not marked to ascertain the proper conduct of the enquiry. It is the further argument that the approval petition was filed on 04.03.2022 and that any marginal delay in filing the petition was only due to administrative reasons, which ought not to have been held against the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel would contend that the authority erred in rejecting the approval petition on technical grounds without considering the merits of the misconduct, especially when the charge of submitting a bogus certificate is grave in nature. He also submitted that the rejection of the approval petition on the ground of delay is unsustainable, as the delay, if any, was properly explained and not wilful. Hence, the learned counsel prayed for setting aside the impugned order and for granting approval to the dismissal order.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Though the name of the 1^st respondent was printed in the cause list, today, there was no representation on behalf of the 1^st respondent. Therefore, this Court proceeds to decide the matter on the basis of the available records.

9. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the 2^nd respondent submitted that it is necessary to file enquiry proceedings but the petitioner failed to produce the same before the 2^nd respondent and that there was a delay, which is non-est i