S MALLIKARJUNA RAO CHIEF SECURITY OFFICER RETD NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION Vs. CHAIRMAN AND THE MANAGING DIRECTOR NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the above writ petitions have been filed by one and the same petitioner on one and the same subject matter pertaining to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner and ended with the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect from 1.1.1994 onwards as per the order dated 7.1.1998 passed by the second respondent/ disciplinary authority against which WP No. 2901 of 1999 had been filed and on appeal preferred before the first respondent/ the appellate authority, he passed an order on 13.1.1999 thereby not only dismissing the appeal but also confirming the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority/the second respondent herein against which the other W.P. No. 12065 of 2000 has been filed.

(2.) Since both the above writ petitions have been filed on one and the same subject by the same writ petitioner, both have been heard together and this common order is passed.

(3.) From the similar affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions, it comes to be known that the petitioner joined duty in the Neyveli Lignite Corporation as Chief Security Officer in 1985 which he held till the time of his superannuation as well as when the charge memo was issued on29-6-1995 which was an anti-dated one; that the said charge memo was served on him 4 days after his superannuation i.e.on 5-7-1995; that the charges were framed for certain misconduct under Clause 18 of the N.L.C. Security Force Regulations; that the charges are (i) while actually supplying 50% of the agreed strength, the contractor used to claim bills for the full strength viz., 30 security supervisors and 300 security guards at the monthly rate of Rs.850/- and 625/- respectively and as a Chief Security Officer he allowed the contractor to violate the conditions of the Corporation (ii)that he allowed the Contractor to change his men frequently (iii) that he also admitted certain excess payment to be made to security supervisors for which the recovery from the Contractor is necessary; thus he has been charge sheeted under Rule 18(1)(2)(i),(ii), (iii) of the N.L.C. Security Force Regulations.