R EZHILOVIYAM Vs. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the proceedings of the first respondent dated 30.3.1994 rejecting the request for employment on compassionate ground the petitioner has filed the above writ petition to quash the same and for appropriate direction to the respondents to give compassionate appointment either to her or to her son to any of the post to which they are eligible. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder. According to her she is the legally wedded wife of one G. Velayutham, who was serving as Assistant Engineer/Construction in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. While he was in service all of a sudden he was mentally affected and admitted in the Government Stanley Hospital, Madras. Later, he was admitted in the Mental Hospital at kilpauk on 22.6.1986. Thereafter, he was admitted permanently on 5.10.1990 and he was taking treatment. He as been taking treatment in the hospital for the past eight years for his mental illness. Because of his mental illness her husband was not able to attend the enquiry and respond to the alleged charge memo served on him. Though her husband stated to have been dismissed from service with effect from 26.5.1989, no order of dismissal from service was either served on her husband or any of their legal heirs. No adequate opportunity was given to her husband to defend his case and even assuming without admitting that he was given adequate opportunity, he could not have defended his case because of his mental disease and madness. She came to know from the letter written by the Superintending Engineer that her husband was terminated from service with effect from 26.5.1989. By letter dated 30.3.1994 she was informed by the Chief Engineer/Personnel that compassionate appointment could not be given to her since her husband was dismissed from service. In the light of the fact that the enquiry conducted by the respondents without verifying the fact, namely, the condition of the husband of the petitioner, who was taking treatment at the Mental Hospital, the order of dismissal passed by them cannot be sustained. In any event, according to her, she may be given compassionate appointment, considering her family circumstance, namely that she has got two male children and a female child.

(2.) ON behalf of the respondents the Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Circle, the third respondent herein filed a counter affidavit. It is stated that disciplinary proceedings was initiated against G. Velayutham, Assistant Engineer/Lines at Polur for his unauthorised absence from 26.5.1989 and for other lapses in his duties. The memo dated 26.6.1986 was acknowledged by one A. Samundeeswari on 12.7.1986. No leave application was received from G. Velayutham. When again the charge memo was sent to the hospital address by registered post on 6.8.1986, the same was also returned on 19.8.1986 as -undelivered-. The charge memo was acknowledged by one P. Shanmugham on 9.10.1986 when it was sent to him to his permanent residential address. However, no explanation to the charge memo was received. When the enquiry summon was sent directly by registered post with acknowledgement due, it was acknowledged by some one. The enquiry was not attended by the said G. Velayutham. Hence, the enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer as exparte. In the enquiry findings, the Enquiry Officer has held that the Charge Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are proved and Charge Nos. 4 and 5 are not proved. Based on the report of the Enquiry Officer, a show cause notice was sent to G. Velayutham to show cause why the punishment indicated therein should not be imposed on him.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice that the medical certificates, letters from the Institute of Mental Health various letters, representations from the petitioner to the respondents, all those documents find place in the typed set of papers filed along with the writ petition as well as additional typed set filed at the time of hearing. In the light of the claim made by the petitioner, I have carefully perused all those documents. Even in the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, it is fairly admitted that the charge memo sent by registered post was returned by the postal department stating that no such person. It is further seen that the respondents were aware of the important fact that at the relevant time, the husband of the petitioner was taking treatment at the Institute of Mental Health, Madras 20. In this regard, it is relevant to refer the averment made in paragraph-3 of the counter affidavit of the third respondent is as follows: ---. A letter was received form the Institute of Mental Health, Madras 20 on 31.7.1986 stating that Thiru G. Velayutham, Assistant Engineer/Lines/Polur had been admitted in that Institute as on in-patient on 22.6.1986 and he required leave on medical grounds for two months from 22.6.1986. --- When again the charge memo was sent to the hospital address by registered post on 5.8.1986, the same was also returned on 19.8.1986 as undelivered----.