It was observed that the order of removal was passed on 25th June, 1997 but the same was held in abeyance on account of pendency of appeal against Order dated 17th April, 1997.
After enquiry, the charge in the first charge sheet having been proved, Order dated 17th April, 1997 was passed removing him from service.
It was observed in the order that the appellant failed to submit any written explanation enquiry report dated 19th March, 1996 was submitted against him a companyy whereof was sent to him on 24th April, 1996 to which he did number give any reply.
The appellate order dated 1st September, 1997 is in appeal against the order dated 17th April, 1997.
Hence, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same are quashed.
The question for companysideration is whether order dated 21st December, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge as affirmed by the Division Bench vide impugned order dated 15th June, 2012 reinstating the respondent with back wages and other benefits is justified.
On appeal, the appellate authority vide Order dated 1st September, 1997, modified the order of punishment of removal from service to reduction of pay by five stages.
The said order was affirmed by the appellate authority on 24th February, 1998.
The impugned order dated 1st December, 1997 arose out of the second charge sheet dated 28th January, 1997 relating to misconduct on 10th January, 1997 by leaving the office without permission and tempering of official record.
Thereafter, vide Order dated 1st December, 1997, the disciplinary authority passed fresh order of removal from service on the basis of second charge sheet based on the alleged misconduct on 10th January, 1997 which charge was held proved during disciplinary enquiry.
Since Order dated 17th April, 1997 had been set aside in appeal and the order of removal based on the second charge sheet, which had been kept in abeyance, was companysidered necessary to be issued.
A second charge sheet dated 28th January, 1997, was served on him alleging interpolation in the attendance register falsely showing that he had attended the office on 10th January, 1997 and that he left the office before time unauthorisedly.
The order of single Judge has been affirmed by the Division Bench.
The respondent was employed as a Junior Assistant in Government Central Press since 1988.
The petitioner is entitled to backwages and other benefits since he was illegally terminated from service.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties.
Against the said order, the respondent preferred O.A. No.4377 of 2001 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal which was transferred to the High Court on abolition of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in 2007 and was registered as Writ Petition No.4446 of 2007.
Learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that interference with the order of removal dated 1st December, 1997 was number justified on the assumption that the order dated 1st September, 1997 was a bar to pass an order of removal.
On 15th February, 1995, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him alleging that he was number attending his official duties regularly, he failed to submit the personal register to the Superintendent and that he frequently applied for leave, adversely affecting the discipline of other companyworkers.
The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner with backwages and other benefits within a period of six 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a companyy of this order.
The said order dated 1st September, 1997 arose out of the first charge sheet dated 15th February, 1995 relating to distinct misconduct of habitually leaving the office without any intimation and frequently applying for leave.
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. Leave granted.
This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and Order dated 15th June, 2012 passed by the High Court of Madras in Writ Appeal No.1099 of 2012.
Learned single Judge of the High Court allowed the said writ petition on 21st December, 2011 with back wages and all other benefits.
