VEERAMANI Vs. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned Judge in W.P.No. 10539 of 1989. The petitioner in the writ petition is the appellant writ appeal. The respondents in the writ petition are the respondents in this writ appeal. the sake of convenience, we are referring to the parties as per their nomenclature in the petition. The petitioner succeeded before the second respondent in I.D.No.188 of 1982 setting aside the order of dismissal made by the first respondent, and the second respondent by the award in I.D.No.188 of 1982 directed the reinstatement of the petitioner in service with continuity of service. However, on the question of backwages, the respondent awarded only 50% of the same. The first respondent was aggrieved with to that portion of the award of the second respondent directing the reinstatement petitioner with continuity of service and the first respondent came to this Court by W.P.No.3524 of 1988. The petitioner was aggrieved with reference to the denial wages to the extent of 50% and the petitioner preferred W.P.No.10539 of 1989. writ petitions had a common disposal at the hands of the learned single Judge. The single Judge did not countenance the cases of the petitioner and the first respondent dismissed both the writ petitions. As already stated, this writ appeal is directed against order of the learned single Judge in W.P.No.10539 of 1989.

(2.) MR .P.Ibrahim Kalifullah, appears for the first respondent. Mr.V.Prakash, learned for the petitioner would submit that when the order of dismissal had been found to sustainable, the normal rule of award of full back wages ought to have been adhered the second respondent and in the instant case no exceptional circumstances have established by the first respondent to make a departure from the normal rule. As against P.Ibrahim Kalifullah, learned counsel for the first respondent would submit that available evidence, the petitioner must be held to be guilty of the charges leveled him and the second respondent only after considering the circumstances of the case fit to award 50% of the backwages and this court should not interfere with the exercised by the 2nd respondent on this question.

(3.) COMING to the present case, the second respondent found that the charges against the petitioner have not been proved and hence the order of dismissal is illegal. Yet, the respondent by merely stating -but considering the circumstances of the case -, directed award of 50% of the back wages. This court is not enlightened as to whether exceptional circumstances are pleaded and established by the first respondent to petitioner the full back wages. The learned single Judge dealt with this aspect following terms: