J ISON Vs. CHIEF ENGINEER AND SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PROCUREMENT AND ADMINISTRATION, TUTICORIN THERMAL POWER STATION, TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) According to the Petitioner, the Petitioner was employed as a contract labor in Tuticorin Thermal Power Station from the year 1984 onwards. Based on the award of Justice Khalid Commission, dated 11.02.1991, he was considered for absorption as a helper, as he served as a contract laborer. The Selection Committee was constituted pursuant to the aforesaid award. He appeared before the Selection Committee on 12.02.1998 and he produced the service certificates issued by the Contractors as well as the Assistant Executive Engineer, Mr. G. Selvaraj, of Tuticorin Thermal Power Plant. Based on those certificates, the Selection Committee recommended for absorption and accordingly, he was observed as Field Assistant by issuing an order of appointment in March 1999.

(2.) While so, a charge-memo dated 07.06.2004 was issued to the Petitioner, alleging that he produced bogus certificates as if he worked in the Tuticorin Thermal Power Station, while he worked in Poombukar Shipping Corporation. It is alleged that Mr. Porus, Mr. R. Gunaselan, Mr. Jeba Gnana Abiraham and Mr. Arnold Fernandez gave letters, dated 22.08.2003, to the Electricity Board stating that the Petitioner was not employed as contract worker and on the other hand, he was employed in Poombukar Shipping Corporation.

(3.) The Assistant Executive Engineer was appointed as an enquiry officer. In the enquiry, Mr. Porus alone was present and he deposed in favor of the Petitioner. He disowned the statement dated 22.08.2003 said to have been given by him to the Vigilance Officer of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Mr. Porus was not cross-examined by the Electricity Board. The other persons did not appear in the enquiry to substantiate the statements said to have been given on 22.08.2003 to the Vigilance Officer and on the other hand, they sent letters to the enquiry officer disowning their statements. No attempt was made to examine those persons in the enquiry. However, the enquiry officer relied on the statement made by those persons behind the back of the Petitioner on 22.08.2003 and held that the charges were proved. Based on his findings dated 12.05.2006, the second Respondent imposed the punishment for stoppage of increment for 5 years with cumulative effect by an order dated 21.02.2008.