M V BALU Vs. CHAIRMAN TAMILNADU HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the first respondent dated 27. 12. 1983 in his proceedings Ref. No. DC3/74352/80 and to direct the 1st respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service.

(2.) ON 22. 8. 1980, at about 3. 30 p. m. , Thiru L. Vinayagam, building Inspector of Madurai Special Division accompanied by the Assistant engineer Thiru Jayachandran, complained to the Executive Engineer and administrative Officer, Madurai that he was beaten up by chappal by the watchman Thiru V. Gurusamy and that he was threatened with a knife by the petitioner, while he was engaged in unloading steel rods at Ellis Nagar store-yard. The Executive Engineer immediately went to the spot with two assistant Executive Engineers Thiru R. Sundaram and Thiru S. Elango. When they entered the scheme area, they found the petitioner lying on the ground fully drunk and in a unconscious state. In the above circumstances, the following charges were framed against the petitioner: '1. That he was in drunken mood and threatened with knife Thiru L. Vinayagam, building inspector, while he was performing his official duties; 2. That he allowed himself under alcoholic influence and thus failed in his official duties of watching storeyard and scheme area.' The petitioner was directed to submit his explanation for the above charges and to return the questionnaire form duly filled in. The petitioner submitted a reply to the charge memo denying the charges levelled against him. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted by the Executive Engineer and administrative Officer, Madurai Special Division. The Executive Engineer and administrative Officer found that the charges framed against the petitioner have been proved. By the memo dated 3. 8. 1981, the first respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner asking him to show cause within 15 days from the date of receipt of the memo as to why his increment should not be stopped for a period of one year without cumulative effect and to treat the period of suspension as leave to which he is eligible. ON 24. 10. 1981, the petitioner submitted his reply to the show-cause notice dated 3. 8. 1981. Thereafter, another complaint was received against the petitioner to the effect that he entered the room of the Assistant Executive Engineer-I, at 12. 30 p. m. of 31. 7. 1982 and uttered unparliamentary words and also tried to assault the executive Engineer under the influence of alcohol. In respect of the said complaint, the petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from 4. 8. 1982. Then on 18. 8. 1983, the first respondent issued another show cause notice to the petitioner and the other watchman Gurusamy asking them to show cause within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice as to why they should not be removed from service for the charges proved against them. To the said show cause notice dated 18. 8. 1983, the petitioner submitted his reply on 6. 9. 1983. ON 27. 12. 1983, the respondent passed an order removing the petitioner and the other watchman Gurusamy from service, pursuant to the show-cause notice issued earlier on 18. 8. 1983. The said order dated 27. 12. 1983 is challenged in this writ petition.