D VELAZHAGAN Vs. TAMIL NADU POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed the above writ petition praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the first respondent dated 24.02.1996 bearing Proc.No.TNPC Bd/PER/CS/22190/94 as confirmed by the order of the second respondent dated 14.5.1997 bearing ref.No.Proc.No.TNPC Bd/PER/CS/140/96 and quash the same as the same is illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with full backwges, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits.

(2.) The facts that are necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows: The petitioner was employed in the services of the respondents-Board as Junior Environmental Engineer (now redesignated as Assistant Engineer) in the year 1987 and promoted as Assistant Environmental Engineer in the year 1993. While so, he took leave from 09.02.1994 to 05.05.1994 intermittently. Thereafter he applied for earned leave for a period of six months from 27.05.1994. It was sanctioned by the Board. But he did not receive any communication from the Board regarding the rejection of leave. As per the Tamil Nadu Government Leave Rules which apply to the Board employees, the petitioner availed earned leave on loss of pay. While so, on 19.01.1995 the Board framed charges against him. The petitioner gave his explanation denying the charges. Thereafter the Board conducted a "farce enquiry" against him. The Enquiry Officer straight away asked the question on the merits of the charges and they were denied by the petitioner. The Board did not let in any evidence and no documents were marked in the enquiry to establish the charges. The enquiry was held only on one day that is on 18.10.1995 and concluded on the same day itself. Thereafter the findings of the Enquiry Officer were sent to the petitioner and the petitioner gave his reply for the same, through proper channel. But that was not considered by the disciplinary authority and the disciplinary authority dismissed the petitioner from service by an order dated 24.02.1996. Thereafter he preferred an appeal before the second respondent and the appellate authority rejected the appeal. According to Regulation 8(2) of the Board's (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation, the petitioner was not given any opportunity to defend his case in the enquiry, by producing relevant documents and examining witnesses and the punishment imposed on the petitioner is without substance and is liable to be set aside. Hence, the above writ petition.

(3.) Counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent in which it is stated that the petitioner availed leave frequently from February 1994 to May, 1994. He rejoined duty on 26.05.1994 and on 27.05.1994 he was transferred to Coimbatore. After joining the Board at Coimbatore he availed leave from 30.05.1994 to 03.06.1994, and further extended the leave from 04.06.1994 to 03.07.1994 and from 02.07.1994 to six months. Hence, the respondent issued a memo dated 13.08.1994 calling upon the petitioner to join duty on or before 25.08.1994 failing which disciplinary action would be taken against him. The petitioner filed his reply to the memo on 24.08.1994 stating that his personal work was not completed and moreover he was eligible for six months leave as per Leave Rules. The petitioner's leave was rejected and he was directed to join duty within three days by memo dated 12.09.1994, failing which, he was informed that disciplinary action would be taking against him without calling for any explanation. The petitioner neither joined duty nor replied to the said memo dated 12.09.1994 and hence, the Board framed charges against him under Rule 8(2) of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Rule (D and A) Rules, 1988 for the dislocation of works by his habitual absence from duty on the pretext of obtaining leave, respectively. Further, the petitioner did not give his reply for the charges. Hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.