A. PITCHAMUTHU Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, DHARMAPURI E.D. CIRCLE, TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD, DHARMAPURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has filed this Writ Petition praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order dated 8.8.1996 in Memo. No.1 -1/PS/A -1/142/96 on the file of the respondent and quash the same and further direct the respondent to release all the terminal benefits payable to the petitioner arising out of the retirement of the petitioner from the services of the respondent on 30.6.1995.

(2.) IN the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner would submit that he was employed as Stores Custodian in the respondent Board; that during December 1988, the Stores were checked by the Special Team, Madras and found 56 items were in shortage; that therefore, the respondent issued a notice on 22.5.1989 against the petitioner to show cause as to why the cost of the materials found short should not be recovered from him; that the petitioner sent a reply on 5.6.1989; that the respondent issued yet another notice on 26.7.1989 calling upon him as to why the cost of materials allegedly worked out at Rs.1,50,689.37 plus centage and handling charge should not be recovered from him; that the petitioner also sent a reply on 3.8.1989 and thereafter, the respondent did not pass any order till 6.9.1995.

(3.) THE further averments of the writ petition are that the respondent issued a memo. dated 6.9.1995 informing about the recovery of a sum of Rs.1,74,046.00 from his terminal benefits; that he filed W.P.14266 of 1995 challenging the said memo. and this Court passed an order setting aside the memo. issued by the respondent further directing the respondent to issue fresh notice and pass appropriate orders, affording an opportunity to the petitioner; that subsequently, the respondent issued a charge memo. dated 27.1.1996 to show cause as to why the value of the materials in shortage should not be recovered from him and for that the petitioner also replied on 27.2.1996; that the petitioner also submitted his objections, but however, the respondent without considering any of his objections, passed the impugned order dated 8.8.1996 to recover a sum of Rs.91,579/= out of his terminal benefits.