G PONNUPANDY Vs. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of quashing the proceedings of the first respondent dated 12.12.2001 in Proceeding No. No.1256/D-3/308/99-7, confirming the order of dismissal in Ku.A.No.Ku.Tha.Po/Thi.Mi.Pa/Thi.Gal/Ni.Pi.3/Nii.2/Ko.Tha/A.No.713-5/2001 dated 27.8.2001 passed by the 2nd respondent and consequential direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity of service, backwages and all attendant and consequential benefits.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that the petitioner joined the 1st respondent Board on 16.5.1971 as Temporary Casual Labour (TCL) and thereafter he was made permanent on 1.1.1977 as helper. THE petitioner was subsequently promoted as Assistant Draughtsman on 31.3.1978 and worked in the said capacity from 21.1.1981 till 29.10.1992. THE petitioner was promoted as Junior Electrical Engineer Grade II and worked in sub-station and finally he was promoted and appointed as Junior Electrical Engineer Grade I in Electricity Distribution Circle on 7.2.1997, as per the appointment made by the 1st respondent. THE petitioner has rendered unblemished record of service for about 30 years. While so, he was issued with a charge memo by the Executive Engineer, the 5th respondent herein, alleging several violations as per the memo dated 8.7.1997. THE petitioner has given a detailed reply and explanation dated 17.11.1997. However, the 4th respondent vide memo dated 15/22.12.1997, framed 15 charges against the petitioner. THE petitioner gave a reply on 29.1.1998.

(3.) PER contra, Mr. M. Vaidyanathan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 5 would contend that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders passed by the respondents 2 & 3. It is contended that both the authorities followed fair procedure by affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to put forward his case. The learned Standing Counsel would proceed to contend that the Appellate Authority also perused the entire materials and considered the charges and as well as the explanation offered by the petitioner and thereafter by assigning reasons, passed the impugned orders. It is submitted that the 4th respondent has also filed a counter before this Court.