TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. S THANICKACHALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Tamil Nadu Electricity Board is the appellant before us. THE challenge is to the order of the learned Judge dated 29. 11. 2000 in w. P. No. 9672 of 1995, wherein the learned Judge while setting aside the order of the appellant-Board dated 29. 6. 1995 insofar as it denied the backwages to the respondent for the period between 16. 10. 1982 and 29. 6. 1995, directed the appellant-Board to pay the said backwages within a period of eight weeks. THE appeal centers around the question as to whether the respondent is entitled for full backwages for the said period.

(2.) FOR the purpose of disposal of this appeal, a few facts are required to be stated. The respondent, who was working as Assistant executive Engineer, was issued with a charge memo dated 8. 3. 1983 alleging that he unauthorizedly absented himself from 16. 10. 1982 onwards. Pursuant to the said charge memo and after holding an enquiry, he was dismissed by the order of the Full Board dated 29. 6. 1984. The said order was challenged by the respondent in W. P. No. 9843 of 1984. The said writ petition was allowed on 16. 12. 1994 wherein the learned Judge held as under in paragraphs 5 and 6: "5. . . . . . In this case, there is no delegation of powers by the Board or authorisation by the Board to General Superintendent to initiate enquiry and frame charges. Hence, the entire enquiry is vitiated. The proceedings against the petitioner are therefore quashed. The order dated 29. 6. 1984 passed in B. P. Ms. (FB) No. 66 (Administrative Branch), is also quashed. 6. It is certainly open to the respondents to initiate fresh enquiry in accordance with the rules and regulations in the manner prescribed subject to rules of limitation, if any. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. " After the passing of the above said order dated 16. 12. 1994, the appellant-Board passed fresh orders only on 29. 6. 1995 wherein while reinstating the respondent, the appellant-Board made it clear that he will not be entitled for any backwages. Simultaneously, by a separate order of the same date, the respondent was also placed under suspension. Mr. V. Radhakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Board states that the said suspension order was subsequently revoked and that the respondent, after serving the Board, also retired from service. It is also relevant to mention that subsequent to the reinstatement, a fresh charge memo was issued to the respondent, which is stated to be the subject matter of challenge in w. P. Nos. 3355 and 3356 of 1997. It is in the above said background, by the impugned order, the learned Judge has granted full backwages for the period between 16. 10. 1982 and 29. 6. 1995.

(3.) CONSEQUENTLY, application of Regulation 57-A (2) (i)along with its proviso comes into play. By virtue of the said regulation, determination of the quantum of amount payable to the respondent for the above said period ought to have been made by the appellant-Board. In fact, under regulation 57-A (2) (i), it is stipulated that such determination should have been made within 60 days from the date on which notice is served on the respondent. Unfortunately, the appellant-Board had not initiated any such notice under the said regulation. In the circumstances, it will have to be held that the proviso to Regulation 57-A (2) (i) gets attracted under which there should be a payment, which, in any case, should be restricted to a period of three years immediately preceding the date on which the judgment of the Court was passed. Therefore, we are of the confirmed view that as per Regulation 57 (7) read along with 57-A (2) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service regulations as well as Regulation 9 (d) of the Discipline and Appeal regulations, having regard to the period which is to be covered for determining the amount, the appellant-Board should pass orders determining the quantum of amount payable to the respondent.