C SELVARAJ Vs. T N E B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is to quash the order of the third respondent dated May 7, 1988 confirming the order of the second respondent dated January 30, 1988 removing the petitioner from the services of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. The petitioner is the Vice President of the Engineering Diploma Holders' Association which was later merged with the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Engineers Sangam. The petitioner used to assist the other employees in several enquiry proceedings, in accordance with Clause 32 (vii) (e) of the Certified Standing Orders. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents did not relish the conduct of the petitioner in assisting and representing the members of the Union in domestic enquiries. In respect of one such enquiry held against one S. Deivanayagam on June 19, 1984, there was an altercation between -the Enquiry Officer, namely, the fourth respondent, and the petitioner as to what transpired between the two in the enquiry proceedings. There is a variation between the versions of the petitioner and the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent is said to have sent a report alleging misconduct on the part of the petitioner. On the basis of such a report, a memo was issued on August 9, 1984 asking the petitioner to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. After considering his explanation, a Charge-Sheet was issued on April 20, 1985 by the Assistant Divisional Engineer. The petitioner submitted his explanation on April 26, 1985. An enquiry was conducted and a report was submitted to the disciplinary authority. On January 1, 1988 the disciplinary authority (second respondent) issued a show cause notice proposing to remove the petitioner from service. The petitioner again submitted his explanation on January 14, 1988 and the impugned order was passed on January 30, 1988. On appeal, the same was confirmed on April 7, 1988.

(2.) BEFORE dealing with the grounds raised in the writ petition, the counter affidavit filed by the respondents can be referred to. According to the respondents at the enquiry held on June 19, 1984 the petitioner purporting to represent the said S. Deivanayagam behaved indifferently and in a rough and arrogant manner. It is admitted that the Enquiry Officer ordered the petitioner and the said S. Deivanayagam to clear out of the room. In the afternoon, the fourth respondent had instructed the Lineman Muthukrishnan not to allow the petitioner to enter the room and allow only the delinquent S. Deivanayagam to enter the room. The petitioner was insisting upon entering the room along with the delinquents. Dei vanayagam. The petitioner is said to have made some statements which, according to the respondents, would amount to riotous behaviour. It is also alleged that the petitioner blocked entry to two other Officers who had come to see the fourth respondent on official work. However, it is admitted that after five minutes when the importance of the visit was explained to the petitioner, they were allowed to enter the office. It is on the basis of the above incidents the charges were framed to which I will make a reference a little later. The other facts resulting in the termination of the services of the petitioner are not disputed. But it is contended that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with law and the orders of punishment do not call for any interference.

(3.) BEFORE referring to the disciplinary proceedings, it occurs to me that a small incident has been blown up into a big issue because the fourth respondent was a little presumptuous in his conduct during the disciplinary enquiry against Deivanayagam. This is clear from the fact that by a memorandum dated July 28, 1984, the Chief Engineer had advised the fourth respondent to conduct the enquiry and restrict his questions only with reference to the charges. The fourth respondent was also advised to permit any one of the Union representatives to assist the respective delinquent. This order seems to have been made with reference to the request to change the Enquiry Officer, made on behalf of the said S. Deivanayagam and six other delinquent officers. Mr. Venkataraman, learned counsel for the petitioner, has taken me through the questions and answers which were exchanged between the fourth respondent and the petitioner on June 19, 1984, Any reasonable person will come to the conclusion that the fourth respondent was concerned more with the authority of the petitioner and not with the disciplinary enquiry. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that the whole thing could have been avoided by the fourth respondent. It may be that the Departmental Officers do not have the requisite experience in conducting disciplinary proceedings. When a Departmental Officer is designated as an Enquiry Officer, he must remember that he wears the mantle of a quasi-judicial authority, He must forget that he is a Departmental Superior Officer than the delinquent or his representative. A reference to the actual charges will disclose the trivial nature of the allegation. The charges are as follows:-