T SANKAR Vs. TAMIL NADU POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the facts relating to both writ petitions are almost identical, they are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The petitioner, T.Sankar, while working as Joint Manager, in the office of Joint Chief Environment Engineer, Chennai, the 2nd respondent issued a charge memo dated 27.01.1998 under regulation 8(2) of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1988, alleging that the petitioner was engaged in operating M/s. Chennai Automobile Pollution Control Centre in the name of his wife. On receipt of the charge memo dated 27.01.1998, the petitioner submitted his explanation dated 26.02.1998 denying the charges by answering that the business carried out by his wife, has got nothing to do with the petitioner. On receipt of the explanation to the charge memo, the 2nd respondent not being satisfied with the said explanation, nominated Dr.N.Mani, Deputy Director (Labs) as Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry into the charge alleged against the petitioner. After receiving a notice dated 04.05.1998 directing the petitioner to participate in the enquiry, the petitioner took part in the said enquiry and cross-examined the Board witness one, Dr.G.S.Thangaraj, Assistant Director and thereafter, the petitioner was also examined. Finally, the enquiry was concluded and thereafter, on 17.09.1998 the order of suspension was revoked by the 2nd respondent and later on, the petitioner joined duty. Whileso, on 16.11.1998, the 2nd respondent imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effective for three years. Aggrieved by the order of the 2nd respondent imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect, an appeal was filed before the 1st respondent/ Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, raising various grounds by questioning the manner in which the 2nd respondent had imposed the punishment, though the charge alleged was not proved in the enquiry. The 1st respondent, being convinced with the case of the petitioner, set aside the punishment imposed by the 2nd respondent by its Resolution No.173-3-9 dated 12.08.1999. However, the 1st respondent, ordered to conduct fresh enquiry on the charge memo. In view of the above said circumstances, the 2nd respondent by his proceedings dated 15.10.1999, nominated an enquiry officer to conduct a fresh enquiry.

(3.) Aggrieved by the order passed by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.641 of 2001 questioning the action of the respondents in ordering fresh enquiry. This Court by order dated 19.11.2001, upheld the portion of the order remitting the matter back to the disciplinary authority by making it clear that the direction to conduct fresh enquiry by appointing a new enquiry officer was set aside by observing that the matter being remanded to the disciplinary authority, namely, the 2nd respondent with further direction that the 2nd respondent shall give proper opportunity to the petitioner before reaching final conclusion with regard to acceptance or otherwise of the enquiry officer's report and also on the charge of misconduct levelled against the petitioner, as the 2nd respondent, after receipt of the enquiry report, has not issued the second show cause notice with regard to acceptance or otherwise of the enquiry officer's report and also the charges levelled against the petitioner before passing the final order. After the above said order passed by this Court, nothing happened. Subsequently, by communication dated 13.02.2004, after a period about 2 years and 3 months, the 2nd respondent informed that it was not concurring with the findings given in the enquiry report and therefore, a second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling for explanation, as to why the 2nd respondent should not deviate from the findings given by the enquiry officer. Immediately, the petitioner gave his reply on 22.03.2004, stating that the report of the enquiry officer was in favour of the petitioner, saying that the charges levelled against him were not proved and that the business carried out by his wife has got nothing to do with the petitioner. The 2nd respondent differed with the findings of the enquiry officer and came to the conclusion that both the charges were proved, and by deviating from the findings of the enquiry officer, found the petitioner guilty and took a contrary stand and imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for the three years with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the order of punishment, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the 1st respondent on 29.07.2004 pointing out the illegality caused to the petitioner. But, the 2nd respondent, by his communication dated 27.10.2004, informed the petitioner that the 1st respondent had examined his appeal and the same was rejected on the ground that there was no fresh ground to reconsider the decision. Aggrieved by the order passed by the 2nd respondent, as confirmed by the 1st respondent, dated 24.06.2004 and 27.10.2004 respectively, the present writ petition has been filed on the ground that the impugned orders are illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and liable to be quashed for the reasons mentioned therefor.