Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

It is the case of the petitioner that he joined the 1st respondent Corporation as Packer on 23.1.76 and after obtaining a series of promotion was working as Junior Assistant. Whileso, the petitioner was visited with a charge memo on 22.7.10, issued by the 3rd respondent, alleging that the petitioner had used abusive language against the 3rd respondent in the presence of his co- employees. After seeking for various documents and the statement of witnesses, and their details thereof, who were alleged to have witnessed the incident, the petitioner having not received the materials sought for, submitted a detailed reply. However, not satisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner, enquiry was ordered and the enquiry officer proceeded with the enquiry. The enquiry officer, holding that the petitioner did not offer his co-operation in the enquiry and did not partake in the enquiry in the absence of details sought for by him, http://www.judis.nic.in ____________ held the charges framed against the petitioner as proved. Pursuant to the same, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 14.5.11 by the 2nd respondent seeking further explanation on the enquiry report to which a detailed reply was sent by the petitioner on 31.5.11. Being not satisfied with the explanation offered, the 2nd respondent imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect on the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said punishment, the petitioner preferred appeal to the 1st respondent on 11.1.12. Since the appeal was not disposed of, the petitioner, for early disposal of the appeal, filed W.P. No.11016/13 and this Court, vide order dated 18.4.13, directed the 1st respondent to pass orders on the appeal within a period of six weeks and in compliance of the said order, the 1st respondent, modified the punishment imposed on the petitioner to one of stoppage of increment for a period of three years, however, without cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the said order, the present petition has been preferred.

20. A perusal of the materials available on record reveals that the charge memo has been issued to the petitioner in Tamil. In the said charge memo, it is seen that the first charge relates to the petitioner using abusive language against the 3rd respondent in front of the employees, who were in attendance on the particular day. Considering decorum, the said abusive language and the exact words have not been shown in the charge, but the same has been highlighted in the charge. It is to be pointed out that the charge memo does not single out any person or a group of persons for having witnessed the incident. It merely proceeds that the abusive language was used by the petitioner in front of all the employees, who had attended office on the particular day.

http://www.judis.nic.in ____________

29. Further, it is to be pointed out that in the articles of charge, the list of witnesses or the documents relied on, have not been shown, but only the charge proceeds on the footing that abusive language was used by the petitioner against the 3rd respondent in the presence of the employees present on that day. The petitioner has also not pleaded that he is not aware of the persons, who were in attendance on that day. The petitioner, being a member of the staff of the said office would be knowing very well about the persons, who were in attendance in the office on the crucial day. Such being the case, the harping of the petitioner to provide the list of witnesses and documents relied on by the respondents is nothing but an attempt on the part of the petitioner to hold a lifeline by invoking the infraction of violation of principles of natural justice.