CHIEF ENGINEER PERSONNEL Vs. S BALASUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed on behalf of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board challenging the award dated 29.11.1994 passed in I.D.No.399 of 1988 directing reinstatement of the respondent No.1.

(2.) The facts in brief are as follows :- The respondent No.1 was working under the Board as Inspector of Assessment at Tiruchirapalli. He was transferred to Ittamozhi and joined duty on 19.6.1985. He remained absent from 20.6.85 to 21.1.86 without prior sanction and during the aforesaid period, he had worked for four days, namely 19.6.85, 24.10.85, 8.1.86 and 22.1.86. Relating to the aforesaid allegation, charge memo dated 22.2.1986 was framed. Subsequently on 13.3.86 another charge memo was framed alleging that the first respondent has drawn false T.A. Bills. Relating to the first charge memo, the first respondent asked for extension of time to submit his explanation but, even by the extended time, no explanation was furnished. The enquiry officer thereafter fixed the enquiry to 2.5.86. Thereafter the enquiry officer proceeded to hold the enquiry ex-parte and found that the allegations were correct. In respect of second set of charge memo dated 13.3.86, the first respondent also did not submit any explanation and the enquiry was fixed to be held on 28.5.86. Even though initially the respondent No.1 attended such enquiry, subsequently, he dissociated himself and the enquiry officer conducted the enquiry ex-parte and submitted his finding holding the first respondent guilty. On receipt of the findings from the enquiry officer, the Chief Engineer, who was the appointing authority, imposed punishment of dismissal by order dated 19.5.86. The appeal preferred by the respondent No.1 was rejected on 19.2.88. After submission of a failure report, I.D.No.399 of 1988 was initiated. The Labour Court has passed an order of reinstatement with full backwages, continuity of service and all attendant benefits, which is being challenged in the present writ petition.

(3.) One of the main grounds of interference is to the effect that the departmental proceeding was initiated by the Superintending Engineer, who was not the appointing authority. It has been submitted by the petitioner that in the standing order there is a provision contemplating initiation of departmental proceedings by the Superintending Engineer and it is not always necessary that the proceedings should be initiated by the appointing authority and not by an inferior officer. The Labour Court has relied upon the decision reported in 1992 WLR 472 (TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN,MADRAS AND 2 OTHERS v. A. PARANTHAMAN) to come to a conclusion that the departmental proceedings can be initiated only by the appointing authority.