M.C. PANNEERSELVAM Vs. VIGILANCE OFFICER / GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both sides and perused the records.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he joined as Electrical Pumps Man in the Chennai Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board on 30/4/1991 (C -Grade Employee). Alleging that he along with one Ranjan - Junior Engineer and Ramamoorthy - Contractor have demanded and received a sum of Rs.15,000.00 as bribe amount on 9/7/2009 from one Praballa Kumar of Kodambakkam, Chennai, subsequently, the petitioner was arrested and released on bail after three days. Thereafter, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 13/7/2009 and a criminal case was registered against him. On 6/11/2011, charge sheet in the aforesaid criminal case was filed in CC.No.2 of 2011 on the file of Principal Sessions and Special Judge, Chennai. Thereafter, the case was transferred to the file of the Special Court for Prevention of Corruption Cases, Chennai in CC.No. 7 of 2011, wherein the petitioner alone was cited as accused and the other co-accused/arrested persons were shown as witnesses.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after lapse of 10years, the first respondent herein had issued charge memo in Charge Memo No.CMWSSB/P&A/V/C2/1439 dtd. 14/6/2019 under 10(2) of CMWSSB Discipline and Appeal Regulations 1978. For which, the petitioner made a representation before the first respondent to defer the enquiry till the disposal of criminal case stating that the charges in the departmental enquiry and the charges framed in the criminal case are one and the same. The petitioner further requested the first respondent to permit him to engage a lawyer to conduct the oral enquiry. The aforesaid request of the petitioner was rejected by the second respondent vide his proceedings dtd. 16/8/2009, stating that with regard to engagement of lawyer, it will be decided by the 3rd respondent/Enquiry Officer. In turn, on 20/11/2019, the 3rd respondent/Enquiry Officer rejected the request of the petitioner to engage a lawyer and posted the enquiry on 19/12/2019 and 20/12/2019, with a direction to Vigilance Inspector to be present during enquiry. On 17/12/2019 another memo was issued by the 3rd respondent stating that the enquiry was posted on 23/1/2020 and 24/1/2020 based on the request of the Vigilance Inspector. Under these circumstances, the present writ petition is filed to set aside the order of the 2nd respondent dtd. 16/8/2019 and the order of the 3rd respondent dtd. 20/11/2019.