K.P.Perumal v. The Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. & Ors.

O R D E RBy consent of both sides the writ petition is taken up for finaldisposal.2.The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order of thefirst respondent dated 1.9.2005 communicated through the secondrespondent on 30.9.2008, imposing the punishment of compulsoryretirement against the petitioner with a direction to the respondentsto continue the petitioner in service with all attendant benefitsincluding seniority and monetary benefits.3.The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petitionare as follows:(a)The petitioner was appointed as Assistant General Manager inthe year 1987 in the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment CorporationLtd., fully owned by the Government of Tamil Nadu and in the year1994 he was overlooked for promotion to the post of Deputy GeneralManager, at the instance of promotee Officers. The petitioner gothis promotion as Deputy General Manager in the year 1995 and he iscontinuing in the said post.(b)In the year 2002, the petitioner became eligible forpromotion to the post of General Manager in the vacancy caused andaccording to the petitioner, he was deprived of getting promotion atthe instance of promotee officers. A show cause notice dated27.2.2003 was issued stating that the petitioner made false travelallowance claim for a sum of Rs.4,402/- for his official toursperformed during July and August, 2002, to Coimbatore, Bangalore andMadurai.(c)Petitioner submitted explanation on 18.3.2003 by statingthat as Deputy General Manager, he is entitled to First Class A/Cfair, but claimed only second class A/C fair. According to thepetitioner, as he travelled at the last minute, he relied upon theprivate travel agent and got tickets, which were subsequentlyupgraded as second class A/C. Petitioner further stated that if theCorporation dispute the amounts, they can pay the amount as in thecase of other employees.(d)On 7.4.2003, a regular charge memo was issued alleging threecharges. On 25.4.2003, the General Manager was appointed as EnquiryOfficer. Petitioner attended the enquiry on 28.10.2003, which wasadjourned to 3.11.2003. However, as the petitioner was on medicalleave from 1.11.2003 to 2.12.2003, which was also sanctioned by theMedical Board, he was not able to attend the enquiry on 3.11.2003 andon 3.11.2003, the Enquiry Officer set the petitioner ex parte and on7.11.2003 and closed the enquiry. Petitioner was directed to give https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ written arguments by 14.11.2003. On 27.11.2003, the Enquiry Officerfound that the charges are proved.(e)On 16.12.2003, a show cause notice was issued with regard tothe enquiry findings. The petitioner filed W.P.No.37805 of 2003 andchallenged the show cause notice. On 24.12.2003, interim stay offurther proceedings were granted by this Court in W.P.NO.37805 of2003 and on 1.3.2004, the said writ petition was allowed with adirection to the second respondent Corporation to conduct enquiryfrom the stage in which it was closed, i.e., from 7.11.2003. Thesaid order was challenged by the second respondent in W.A.No.1443 of2003, which was also dismissed by the Division Bench on 17.4.2004.(f)On 3.5.2004, the Managing Director took a decision toconduct enquiry by herself and fixed the date of enquiry as19.5.2004. Petitioner objected the same by sending representation on13.5.2004. On 21.5.2004 the petitioner requested to produce therailway officials, who had given letter to the TIIC about his travel,for cross-examination. The said request was rejected by stating thatunless the said official is examined by the management, no questionof cross-examination will arise. The Managing Director havingproceeded with the enquiry, the petitioner filed W.P.No.15940 of 2004and on 15.6.2004 this Court granted interim stay of all furtherproceedings and the writ petition was finally disposed of on24.11.2004 and the said judgment is reported in 2005 (1) LLN 566(K.P.Perumal v. Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation). Thelearned Judge appointed Sri N.P.K.Menon, retired District Judge, toconduct enquiry and submit report to the Board of Directors anddirected the Managing Director not to sit for the Board meeting whileconsidering petitioner's case.(g)The contention of the petitioner is that Exs.A-6, A-7 and A-8 were marked without examining the authors of the said documents.The material witnesses viz., the Assistant General Manager, TIIC, andthe Railway Officials were not examined despite petitioner's repeatedrequest. The evidence given by DW-2 Travel Agent and DW-3 retiredChief Travelling Ticket Examiner, Southern Railways, were not at allconsidered, particularly with regard to the statement of DW-3 thatticket could be upgraded during journey and the same would notreflect in the final chart. Ultimately, the Enquiry Officer heldthat the charges are proved and a finding was given. (h)According to the petitioner, since the Enquiry Officerconducted the enquiry in a biased manner, he filed W.P.No.8744 of2005 and this Court on 21.3.2005 passed an interim order to theeffect that the Corporation can pass orders and the same shall not begiven effect to and the petitioner's explanation given on 17.3.2005with regard to the enquiry finding was also directed to beconsidered. The said writ petition was finally heard on 30.9.2008and the same was dismissed on the ground that the writ petition is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ premature and if final order is passed, it is always open to thepetitioner to challenge that order, with a further direction that anyadverse order, if any passed would not be given effect to for aperiod of 30 days. The second respondent communicated the decisiondated 1.9.2005 compulsorily retiring the petitioner with effect from30.9.2008.(i)The said order of compulsory retirement dated 1.9.2005giving effect from 30.9.2008 is challenged in this writ petition onthe ground that the Enquiry Officer relied upon Exs.A-6, A-7 and A-8without examining the authors of the documents; that the non-examination of the author of the exhibits viz., the Assistant GeneralManager and the Railway Official has resulted in denial of reasonableopportunity to the petitioner; that the evidence of defence witnessesDW-2 Travel Agent and DW-3 Retired Chief Travelling Ticket Examinerwere not considered and the Enquiry Officer brushed aside theirevidence; that the travel claims made by other managers were notcalled for and no verification was made in respect of TA claims madeby other officers and only against the petitioner departmental actionwas taken; that in his explanation dated 18.3.2003 he had stated thathe may be paid the amount as the Corporation feels; and that thesecond respondent is biased by setting the petitioner ex parte, whichwas set aside by this Court.(j)The Managing Director, who is the disciplinary authorityherself conducted the enquiry, which shows the mala fide intention toproceed against the petitioner, the non-consideration of thepetitioner's reply dated 17.3.2005 which was ordered to be consideredby this Court has resulted in non-consideration of relevant issues.Since witnesses were not examined despite the request, principles ofnatural justice is violated. The action initiated against thepetitioner is motivated at the instance of the promotee officerssince the petitioner is a direct recruit.4.The respondents filed counter affidavit contending asfollows:(i)The petitioner was instructed to travel to dischargeofficial duty and he had submitted his claim for reimbursement of TABills. A routine enquiry was sent to the Southern Railway Officeseeking details about the journey, allegedly performed by thepetitioner, to ascertain whether the petitioner had performed journeyin Second A/C Coach, as claimed by him. The Chief CommercialManager, Southern Railways, in his letter dated 16.12.2002 furnishedthe status of the journey undertaken by the petitioner and as per thereport the petitioner had not travelled in A/C coach and he travelledonly in second class sleeper. Having travelled in second classsleeper, petitioner was not eligible to claim any fair above secondclass sleeper fair and therefore he had submitted false claim seekingSecond A/C fair. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (ii)The petitioner is also found to have submitted false claimsby not having undertaken journey in reserved class on 12.7.2002,3.8.2002 and 5.8.2002 respectively, as confirmed in the railwayreport. However, he chose to claim A/C fair for these journeys also.Based on the report received from the railways, a show cause noticewas issued asking the petitioner as to why he made fraudulent claims,for which the petitioner submitted explanation and the same havingbeen found not acceptable, regular charges were framed on 7.4.2003and an enquiry was conducted by the then General manager initiallyand the said report was set aside since it was conducted during hismedical leave.(iii)The subsequent enquiry conducted by the ManagingDirector was also challenged by the petitioner alleging bias and thisCourt ultimately appointed a retired District Judge to conductenquiry with the consent of the petitioner as well as the secondrespondent. Consequently the retired District Judge conductedenquiry, examined witnesses from the administrative department andthrough him nine documents were marked. On behalf of the petitioner,two witnesses apart from the petitioner was examined. Petitioneralso marked eight documents. The Enquiry Officer found that thecharges were proved and submitted a report on 7.5.2005.(iv)Thereafter petitioner filed another writ petition which wasultimately dismissed with liberty to challenge the final order. Thedecision taken by the second respondent is justified on the groundthat based on the proven charges of attempting to defraud the TIIC,compulsory retirement order was passed.(v)It is also stated in the counter affidavit that thepetitioner's earlier attempt to get the charge memo quashed wasrejected by this Court. The enquiry report was placed before theBoard and after considering the reply given by the petitioner, Boardtook a decision to impose the punishment of compulsory retirement.(vi)Regarding summoning of Southern Railway Officials, who hadissued the letters indicating that the petitioner travelled in SecondClass Sleeper for certain days and not travelled on three days, theEnquiry Officer suggested the petitioner to file a petition for thesame and take steps for issuing summons, but the petitioner refusedto take steps to summon the railway officer.(vii)The Enquiry Officer also gave a finding that Exs.A-7and A-8 were sent after verification at the office of the SouthernRailway and there is no necessity to enquire the railway officialsfor that purpose. The petitioner did not produce tickets for SecondA/C for all the journeys and also not produced the receipt for payingdifference amount for upgrading the tickets, issued by the TravellingTicket Examiner (TTE). The burden of proof is on the petitioner andas the petitioner has not discharged the said burden, he cannot https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ question the order of the Enquiry Officer. It is further statedthat the charge being serious in nature the respondent being afinancial institution, viewed the delinquency of the petitionerseriously and the punishment of compulsory retirement is ordered.5.Petitioner filed a reply affidavit and reiterated the pointsraised in the affidavit in support of the writ petition, particularlythe non-examination of the Railway Officials, the motive on the partof the Managing Director and the discriminatory treatment meted outto the petitioner when similarly placed officials were sanctionedwith TA bill, either based on the claim or sanction with restrictedamount.6.Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner submitted that when a show cause notice was issued on27.2.2003, the petitioner sent reply stating that if the claim wasnot admissible, eligible amount may be sanctioned and hence there wasno necessity to frame regular charge memo dated 7.4.2003. Exs.A-6,A-7 and A-8 were marked without the authors being examined and thusthe petitioner was denied of the opportunity to cross-examine thesaid persons, who are the authors of the said documents. The EnquiryOfficer shifted the burden to the petitioner to prove that he hasactually travelled as claimed by him. The charge having been framedby the respondents, it is for the respondents to prove the chargesalleged against the petitioner. The evidence of DW-3, who is aretired Railway Official, was not considered by the Enquiry Officerand the punishment is also unproportionate to the gravity of thecharges framed.7.Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Additional Advocate General, on theother hand submitted that the petitioner having claimed to haveupgraded his ticket from Sleeper class to Second A/C during thecourse of the journey, he is bound to produce the receipt issued byTTE and the said receipt having not been produced, the claim made bythe petitioner is to be treated as bogus claim. There is noperversity in the finding of the Enquiry Officer since Ex.A-6, A-7and A-8 were marked, after serving copy to the petitioner and hencenot cross-examining the authors of the said document has not causedany prejudice to the petitioner. The submission of the petitionerthat the TA claims of other officers is also to be called for isunjustified by contending that since allegation is made only againstthe petitioner therein no need to call for TA claims of otherofficers. The findings given by the Enquiry Officer is based on theoral and documentary evidence available, and hence the said findingcannot be treated as perverse finding. Learned Additional AdvocateGeneral submitted that the jurisdiction of this Court to go into theissue under Article 226 of Constitution of India being very limited,the impugned order passed by the respondents are legal and valid. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8.I have considered the rival submissions made by the learnedcounsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional AdvocateGeneral for the respondents in the light of the pleadings anddecisions cited on either side.9.The charges dated 7.4.2003, levelled against the petitionerreads as follows:"1.On verification, it is found that neither thename of Thiru K.P.Perumal, nor the ticket No.25692481furnished by Thiru K.P.Perumal in his T.A.Bill is foundin the passenger dump details maintained by SouthernRailway, Chennai, for journey in any reserved classfrom Chennai Central to Coimbatore by Train No.2875(Kovai Express) of 05.08.2002. Hence it is obviousthat Thiru K.P.Perumal had not travelled by anyreserved class, but has claimed fare of Rs.479/-fraudulently as though he had travelled by A/c Chaircar.2.Regarding the journey performed by him fromCoimbatore to Chennai on 06.08.2002, it is found thatthe Ticket No.25692482 furnished by him for II A/c wasbooked in the name of Thiru K.P.Perumal for journey insleeper class from Coimbatore to Chennai Central byTrain No.2674 (Cheran Express) of 06.08.2002 and thatThiru K.P.Perumal performed the journey in Coach No.S-9Berth No.53. Hence, it is obvious that ThiruK.P.Perumal had travelled by II Class Sleeper whereashe has claimed Rs.925/- in his T.A.Bill fraudulently asthough he had travelled by II Class A/c.3.Thiru K.P.Perumal has claimed a sum ofRs.717/- towards the fare of II Class A/c for thejourney performed by him from Chennai to Bangalore on31.07.2002 as if he had travelled by II Class A/c. Onverification it is found that Thiru K.P.Perumal hadbooked the ticket in Ticket No.25906568 in his name forthe journey in Sleeper class from Chennai Central toBangalore City by Train No.6222 on 31.07.2002 and thathe had performed the journey in Coach No.S-5 BerthNo.71. Hence it is obvious that Thiru K.P.Perumal hadtravelled only in II Class Sleeper, but, hasfraudulently claimed Rs.717/- in his T.A.Bill as thoughhe had travelled by II Classs A/c.4.Thiru K.P.Perumal has claimed a sum ofRs.717/- in his T.A.Bill for the journey from Bangaloreto Chennai on 03.08.2002. On verification, it is foundthat neither the name of Thiru K.P.Perumal nor the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ticket No.28754186 are found in the passenger dumpdetails maintained by Southern Railway, Chennai, forthe journey in any reserved class from Bangalore Cityto Chennai Central on that day. Hence, it is obviousthat Thiru K.P.Perumal had not travelled from Bangaloreto Chennai in any reserved compartment, but hasfraudulently claimed Rs.717/- in his T.A.Bill as thoughhe had travelled by II Class A/c.5.Thiru K.P.Perumal has furnished T.A.Bill forthe journey performed by him from Chennai to Coimbatoreon 04.07.2002 as if he travelled by II Class A/c andfurnished ticket No.08343542 and claimed a sum ofRs.925/- towards the fare of II Class A/c asreimbursement. On verification, it is found that theticket bearing No.24058562 was booked in the name ofThiru K.P.Perumal for journey in II Class Sleeper inCoach No.S-1, No.102 from Chennai to Salem by TrainNo.2679 Coimbatore Intercity Express of 04.07.2002.Hence, it is obvious that Thiru K.P.Perumal hadtravelled from Chennai to Salem by II Class Sleeperwhereas he has fraudulently claimed II Class A/c fareupto Coimbatore as though he travelled by II Class A/cupto Coimbatore. Even though he performed the journeyonly upto Salem on 04.07.2002, he furnished lodge billNo.1364 dated 07.07.2002 of Sri Kumaran Lodge,Coimbatore, as if he stayed at Coimbatore from05.07.2002 (5.30 A.M.) to 07.07.2002 (8.00 P.M.).6.He claimed T.A. for the journey performedfrom Madurai to Chennai on 12.07.2002 as if hetravelled in II class A/c. with Ticket No.04146271. Onverification, it is found that neither the name ofThiru K.P.Perumal nor the ticket No.04146271 is foundin the passenger dump details maintained by SouthernRailway, Chennai, for journey in any reserved classfrom Madurai City to Chennai. Hence, it is obviousthat he had not travelled from Madurai to Chennai inany reserved compartment whereas he fraudulentlyclaimed II Class A/c. fare of Rs.895/-." From the perusal of the Charge Memo it is evident that the chargeswere framed after getting a report from the Southern Railway ChiefCommercial Manager dated 16.12.2002. The said report reads asfollows: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "SOUTHERN RAILWAY Head Quarters Office,Commercial Branch, Chennai -3 Dated 16-12-2004 No.C.268/II/LTC/2001/Vol.IV/82 & 87Assistant General Manager (Admn),The Tamil Nadu Industrial InvestmentCorporation Limited,New No.692, Anna Salai,Nandanam,Chennai - 600 035.Sir,Sub:Verification of LTC caseRef:Your letter No.Admn/A 6/2002-2002,dated 18-09-2002.----With reference to our letter cited above, it isadvised that neither the name of the passenger ShriK.P.Perumal, aged 48 years, nor the ticket No.25692481as furnished by you were found in the passenger dumpdetails maintained at PRS Chennai for journey in allreserved class from Chennai Central to Coimbatore byTrain No.2675 of 05-08-2002.Return Journey the passenger transaction detailsindicate that the PNR No.431-8204183, TicketNo.25692482 has been initially booked on 06-08-2002 infavour of Shri K.P.Perumal aged 47 years for journeyin Sleeper Class from Coimbatore to Chennai Central byTrain No.2674 of 06-08-2002. The verification ofFinal Reservation Working Charts indicate that theparty has performed the journey in coach No.S9, berthNo.53.Regarding item II, Return Journey by TrainNo.6008/6518 of 03-08-2002, neither name of thepassenger Shri.K.P.Perumal aged 48 years, nor theticket No.28754186 as furnished by you were found inthe passenger dump details maintained at PRS Chennaifor journey in all reserved class from Bangalore Cityto Chennai Central. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Regarding item III, it is advised that thepassenger transaction details indicate that the PNRNo.441-7609660, Ticket No.24058562 has been initiallybooked on 30.06.2002 in favour of Shri K.P.Perumalaged 47 years for journey in Second Class from ChennaiCentral to Salem by Train No.2679 of 04.07.2002. Theverification of Final Reservation Working Chartsindicate that the party has performed the journey inCoach No.S1, berth No.102.Return journey by Train No.2638 of 12.07.2002,neither name of the passenger Shri K.P.Perumal aged 48years, nor the ticket No.04146271 as furnished by youwere found in the passenger dump details maintained atPRS Chennai for journey in all reserved class fromMadurai City to Chennai Central.Regarding by Train No.6222 of 31.07.2002, theverification is under process and would be advised toyou in due course.This is for your information.Yours sincerely, Chief Commercial Manager." The said report was received by the TIIC, based on the letter writtenby the General Manager based on the oral instruction given by theManaging Director and the same is admitted during examination of themanagement witness.10.It is an admitted case that at the first instance when thepetitioner was confronted with the allegations, he has stated that ifthe claims made are not found acceptable, the respondents canrestrict the claim and sanction admissible amount and pay the same.It is also an admitted fact that the exparte enquiry made against thepetitioner when the petitioner was on medical leave, was set aside bythis Court in W.P.No.37805 of 2003 dated 1.3.2004 by holding thatsufficient opportunity was not given to the petitioner, and with adirection to hold enquiry from the stage where it was closed. It isalso an admitted fact that the said order was confirmed inW.A.No.1443 of 2004 dated 17.3.2004. Thereafter the ManagingDirector, who is the disciplinary authority herself proposed toconduct enquiry, against whom the petitioner alleged bias and thisCourt in the decision reported in 2005 (1) LLN 566 (K.P.Perumal v.Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation) ordered to conductenquiry by a retired District Judge and the Managing Director wasdirected not to sit in the Board meeting, when decisions are taken https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ with regard to the petitioner. The retired District Judge alsoconducted enquiry and examined the witnesses.11.It is the specific case of the management that on receipt ofthe report and details from the Southern Railways, regular chargememo was issued and the Managing Director orally requested to getverification report from the Southern Railway. In the crossexamination it is admitted by the management witness that even thoughthe TA Rule may not provide any power to verify the claim by AGM, heacted on the oral instructions of the Managing Director. The saidAGM was not examined to substantiate the said statement made by themanagement witness and the letter written by the AGM, SouthernRailway is also marked. The report of the Southern Railway withregard to the petitioners journey details is also marked through themanagement witness. The petitioner objected the said marking andrequested the Enquiry Officer to summon the Officer, who issued thesaid details. The Enquiry Officer instead of summoning the SouthernRailway Official, who is the author of Ex.A-7 and A-8, has chosen tostate that the petitioner has to file interim application and if anysuch interim application is filed, the same will be considered.12.When the whole charge memo is based on the reply receivedfrom the Railway Officials, it is incumbent on the part of therespondents, more particularly the Enquiry Officer to summon the saidofficer to corroborate the statements contained therein. It is thespecific case of the petitioner that during the course of the journeyhe has upgraded the ticket from Sleeper class to Second A/C. It isalso the specific case of the petitioner that he has paid thedifference amount and the TTE issued the receipt, however the samewas returned to the Ticket Collector on his reaching the destinationand therefore he is not having the receipts. The retired RailwayOfficial, who was examined as DW-3 also deposed that when a passengertravels in higher class after paying the difference in fair, the TTEissues receipt, which is known as excess fair ticket. It is alsostated that Exs.A-7 and A-8 issued by the Railway Office only referto the passenger chart and not the final chart submitted and withoutfinal chart, no conclusion can be drawn. It is also stated that whenthe TTE remits the excess fair collected, the excess fair ticket bookis not verified and not surrendered to the railways.13.In the light of the said evidence given by DW-3 and sincethe entire case revolves around the documents marked as Exs.A-7, A-8,it is all the more required by the Enquiry Officer to summon theRailway Officials, who issued the said reply to the respondents whilerelying upon the contents in the said documents. The petitionersays he has upgraded the ticket during the course of the journey andremitted the excess fair by cash, for which receipt was issued, whichwas said to be returned along with railway ticket to the TicketCollector. When that being the case, the examination of the RailwayOfficials to find out whether the petitioner really paid the excess https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ amount and travelled in the upgraded ticket, can be verified onlyfrom the charts/counterfoil maintained by the railways and the amountremitted by the TTE concerned. The non-examination of the RailwayOfficials, who issued A-7 and A8, vitiates the entire enquiryproceedings. Further the Enquiry officer gave a finding based onsuspicion by observing, "all these are suspicious circumstances,which cannot be overlooked". 14.The Honourable Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR1964 SC 364 (Union of India v. H.C.Goel), in paragraph 24 held thatmere suspicion cannot be a ground to punish a person even under thedepartmental proceedings. In paragraph 26 it is observed as follows:"....... Though we fully appreciate the anxietyof the appellant to root out corruption frompublic service, we cannot ignore the fact that incarrying out the said purpose, mere suspicionshould not be allowed to take the place of proofeven in domestic enquiries. It may be that thetechnical rules which govern criminal trials incourts may not necessarily apply to disciplinaryproceedings, but nevertheless, the principle thatin punishing the guilty scrupulous care must betaken to see that the innocent are not punished,applies as much to regular criminal trials as todisciplinary enquiries held under the statutoryrules. .........."The Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2008) 8 SCC 236 (Stateof Uttaranchal v. Kharak Singh) in paragraph 15 held that thedepartmental enquiry must be conducted bona fide and care must betaken to see that the equiries should not become empty formalities.15.The service rule applicable to the petitioner viz., Rule6.17 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd.,Service Rules, 1990, also contemplates that the delinquent isentitled to cross-examine the witnesses called he/she may wish andthe enquiry officer may refuse to call a witness by stating specialand sufficient reasons in writing. The said sub-rule reads asfollows:6.17(i)In every case where it is proposed toimpose on a member of a service under theCorporation any of the penalties specified initems (i) to (x) in Rule 6.15, the grounds onwhich it is proposed to take action shall bereduced to the form of a definite charge orcharges, which shall be communicated to the personcharged, together with a statement of theallegations on which each charge is based and ofany other circumstances which it is proposed totake into consideration in passing orders on thecase. He/She shall be required within a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ reasonable time, to put in a written statement ofhis/her defence and to state whether he/shedesires an oral enquiry. The enquiry shall beheld if such an enquiry is desired by the personcharged or is directed by the authority concerned.At that enquiry oral evidence shall be heard as tosuch of the allegations as are not admitted andthe person charged shall be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses called, as he/she may wish,provided that the Officer conducting the enquiry,may, for special and sufficient reasons to berecorded in writing refuse to call a witness. Theproceedings shall contain a sufficient record ofthe evidence and on statement of the findings andthe grounds thereof.Provided that in case of a person appointedor promoted to a post by transfer from any otherclass or service the Corporation may at any timebefore the appointment of the said person as afull member to the said post, revert him/her tosuch class or service either for want of vacancyor in the event of his/her becoming surplus torequirements without observing the formalitiesprescribed in this sub-rule.(ii)In case it is decided to hold an enquiry in adisciplinary proceeding, an employee of theCorporation above the rank of the person chargedshall be appointed as the Enquiry Officer. Nooutside person or agency shall be appointed as theEnquiry Officer."The conduct of the Enquiry Officer in not calling the RailwayOfficials for examination merely on the ground that the petitionerhas not filed interim application is not correct.16.Thus, I am of the view that the non-examination of theRailway Officials, who are the authors of Exs.A-7 and A-8, which isthe basis for framing charge memo and holding the petitioner guiltyof the charges and denial of petitioners to cross examine the saidauthors of the documents are denial of reasonable opportunity to thepetitioner to establish his innocence. Hence the finding of theEnquiry Officer drawn without examining the said Railway Officials onthe basis of Ex.A-7 and A-8 and drawing adverse inference against thepetitioner for non-production of receipts to the TTE for payment ofexcess amount, is to be treated as perverse finding and theconsequential decision taken by the first respondent to impose thepunishment of major penalty of compulsory retirement against thepetitioner is unsustainable. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

17.However, it is open to the respondents to proceed with theenquiry against the petitioner by summoning the Railway Officials,who have issued Exs.A-7 and A-8 and give opportunity to thepetitioner. If the respondents are willing to conduct enquiry on theabove line, the same should be commenced and completed within aperiod of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. No costs.Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarvrTo1.The Chairman (on behalf of the Board of Directors),Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd.,692, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai - 600 035.2.The Managing Director,The Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd.,No.692, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 035.1 cc To M/s. Row & Reddy, Advocate, SR.682301 cc To Mr.A.Paneerselvam, Advocate, SR.68670W.P.No.24706 of 2008 RJ(CO)SRA(16/12/2008)