IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17.02.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA W.P.No.27326 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 M.Muthiah ... Petitioner Vs. 1. Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd., (A Government of India Enterprises) Rep. By its Managing Director, No.21, N.S. Bose Road, Kolkata 700 001. 2. The General Manager (c ) & Disciplinary Authority, P&A Department, Manali, Chennai 600 068. 3. Shri K.Jayaraman Enquiry Officer, Pascal Paradise, Old No.13, NewNo.1/1, 8th Main Road, Kasthurba Nagar, Adyar, Chennai 20. ... Respondents Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the respondents in connection with the second respondent's order of refusal to change the enquiry officer bearing Ref.No.BL:Oths:P&A1 dated 22.11.2010 and quash the same. For petitioner : Mr. Saravanakumar For respondents 1&2 : Mr.John for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co. : No. Appearance for R3 O R D E R The petitioner has approached this Court, with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing the order dated 22.11.2010 vide which request of the petitioner for change of enquiry officer was declined. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. A charge memo was issued to the petitioner on 7.3.2009, to which the petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 18.3.2009. The respondent not being satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner, appointed Shri K.Jayaraman, (retired District Judge) as Enquiry Officer, 3. The petitioner being not satisfied with the appointment of retired District Judge as Enquiry Officer, made representation to change the enquiry officer in view of earlier decision taken by the enquiry officer, because of which, the petitioner apprehended that free and fair trial would not be possible, if the enquiry officer proceed further with the enquiry. 4. The ground on which change of enquiry officer was sought, was that the justice should not be done, but should seems to have been done. According to the petitioner, it would not be possible, as Thiru K.Jayaraman, has disclosed his views in earlier enquiry. 5. It is not necessary to go into the merit, as the learned counsel for the respondent has stated, that management has itself decided to change the enquiry officer. 6. In view of the stand taken by the learned counsel for the respondent, this writ petition has been rendered infructuous and disposed off accordingly. No costs. 7. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the parties, that time fixed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, for completion of enquiry has already expired and that the new enquiry officer, will not be in a position to conclude the enquiry expeditiously, as he will have to follow the principle of natural justice to give opportunity to both parties to prove their case. 8. The learned counsel for the parties therefore prays that the time for completion of the enquiry be extended by four months, from the date of first hearing to be fixed by the new enquiry officer. 9. The prayer is allowed and time is extended by four months from the date of first hearing. The new enquiry officer is directed now to complete the enquiry, within four months of the date of first hearing, to be fixed by him. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ vaan To 1. The Managing Director, Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd., (A Government of India Enterprises) No.21, N.S. Bose Road, Kolkata 700 001. 2. The General Manager (c ) & Disciplinary Authority, P&A Department, Manali, Chennai 600 068. 3. Shri K.Jayaraman Enquiry Officer, Pascal Paradise, Old No.13, NewNo.1/1, 8th Main Road, Kasthurba Nagar, Adyar, Chennai 20. + 1 cc to Mr.S. Srarvanakumar, Advocate Sr.12022 + 1 cc to M/s. T.S. Gopalan, Advocate Sr./11886 W.P.No.27326 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 SA(CO) Eu 16.3.11 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/