K PARKUNAM Vs. CHAIRMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order passed by the third respondent, the Chief Engineer, Distribution, dated 16.7.1999, imposing punishment of stoppage of increment. Such order has been confirmed in appeal by order dated 27.10.2000. Appellate order itself indicates that based on the suo motu power of review, the Chief Engineer had revived the charges against the petitioner and had imposed the punishment.

(2.) As a matter of fact, the Superintending Engineer had passed an order in November 1993 to the following effect :- . . . The explanation given by the Assistant Engineer is accepted due to the reasons putforth by him. He is instructed to be careful in future. . . .

(3.) It is the contention of the petitioner that the order which had been passed on 23.11.1993 could not have been passed suo motu review by the Chief Engineer after the lapse of period of limitation. In this respect, he has invited my attention to the provisions contained in Regulation 25 of the Manual on Conduct Regulations and Disciplinary Proceedings issued by the Board. Regulation 25 is to the following effect :-