Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1095 (MAD)

L. Savariraj v. The Commissioner & Another

2005-07-19

A.KULASEKARAN

body2005
Judgment :- (Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.) This writ petition is listed today for admission and I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Corporation. 2. The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner, K. Abisekhapuram Division, Tiruchirapalli, the second respondent herein made in Na.Ka.No.C3/6220/2002 (Maiyam) in Na.Da.La.dated 30-05-2005 quash the same and direct the respondents herein to permit the petitioner to continue as watchman in the existing post with all his service and monetary benefits. 3. The petitioner was appointed as watchman in the first respondent Corporation. For certain alleged irregularities, the first respondent has issued a charge memo and on receipt of the same the petitioner has submitted a representation to the first respondent seeking to furnish the documents relied on him. The first respondent has also appointed the second respondent as enquiry officer, who conducted enquiry by examining some witnesses, but the request of the petitioner to cross-examine those witnesses were rejected by the second respondent and enquiry report was filed, which is challenged in the writ petition. 4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the enquiry officer, without affording an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses has concluded the enquiry and submitted his enquiry report to the first respondent, which is violative of the principles of natural justice and prayed to quash the enquiry report which is impugned in this writ petition. 5. This Court ordered notice to the respondents, but the respondents have not chosen to file any counter till date. It is seen from the impugned enquiry report, that the second respondent has hastily concluded the enquiry without considering the request of the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses. 6. The proceedings in which punishments are sought to be awarded are quasi-judicial in nature, both at the earlier stage of enquiry into the charges and at the later stage of awarding punishment, hence reasonable opportunity shall be given to the delinquent, denial of cross examination that too when a written request is made amount to denial of opportunity. 7. 6. The proceedings in which punishments are sought to be awarded are quasi-judicial in nature, both at the earlier stage of enquiry into the charges and at the later stage of awarding punishment, hence reasonable opportunity shall be given to the delinquent, denial of cross examination that too when a written request is made amount to denial of opportunity. 7. In view of the fact that the enquiry officer/ the second respondent has concluded the enquiry, without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses, and filed the report, the impugned order is setaside. The matter is remanded back to the second respondent to conduct enquiry from the stage where the petitioner sought permission to cross-examine the witnesses of the establishment/corporation and also permit him to examine his witnesses if any. The petitioner is also directed to co-operate for completion of the enquiry and the enquiry officer is further directed to complete the enquiry and submit his report to the first respondent within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 8. With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected WPMP is also closed.