G RAJAMANICKAM Vs. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the writ petition is to issue a Writ of Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the second respondent in connection with the order passed by him in his proceedings No. Ku Aa No. Se Po/e Ka/pe. Ra/nir/ni vu 1/ko O Na. 81/96, dated 10. 10. 1996, confirmed by the first respondent in his proceedings memo No. 229/adm 4/a. 1/f. DP (P)/97, dated 27. 6. 1997 and quash the same.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed by direct recruitment as temporary Casual Labour in the respondent/tneb; his service was regularised as helper on 1. 4. 1977; and, later on, he was promoted to the post of Wireman in the year 1988. He took leave for five months from 11. 7. 1995 to 10. 12. 1995, i. e. One month Earned Leave as his wife was seriously ill, and four months Medical Leave as he became seriously ill, and necessary medical certificates were furnished. But, they were returned, without assigning any reason, directing him to join duty. It was not known as to how and why his leave was refused. Taking leave is concomitant to the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and it ought not to have been returned without any reason. The leave refusal was due to the instruction of the Superintendent Engineer, who is the Appellate Authority. An enquiry was conducted in which the petitioner denied the charges. But, the Enquiry Officer held that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. Thereafter, the show cause notice was served asking him to show cause why he should not be punished. At the time of serving a copy of the Enquiry Officer's Report, the proposed punishment was also mentioned. The second respondent has passed an order simply accepting the findings of the Enquiry Officer; but, no reason has been assigned for confirming the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Further, the punishment is disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner. In the show cause notice itself the punishment ought not to have been mentioned; on that ground alone the order is liable to be set aside. The Appellate Authority has not exercised his powers properly, but simply endorsed the order of the disciplinary authority. Hence, the order is unreasonable and violative of the provisions of the Constitution including the principles of natural justice.

(3.) IN the counter it has been stated that by Order dated 29. 6. 1995, the petitioner was transferred to Thuraiyur Division on administrative reasons with specific instructions that no leave of any kind will be granted on the eve of his transfer or after relief. Inspite of the specific instructions, the petitioner applied for Earned Leave from 11. 7. 1995 to 25. 7. 1995 and from 12. 8. 1995 to 30. 9. 1995, and subsequently extended upto 10. 12. 1995, producing medical certificate. But, the leave was refused due to non-adherence to the instructions issued to him. As per Clause 7 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Leave Regulation, leave cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is the discretion of the authority to grant, refuse or revoke leave, at any time, according to the exigencies of service. This Court has upheld the above contention in W. P. No. 1860 of 1986. The petitioner was transferred on administrative grounds so as to avoid departmental disciplinary action against him. The charges were framed against the petitioner for his unauthorised absence from duty from 11. 7. 1995. In the enquiry, the charge of wilful disobedience was proved. Thereafter, the show cause notice was issued proposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect. The past records of the petitioner was also considered before imposing the punishment. The petitioner did not submit any reply to the show cause notice. Therefore, there is no violation of the rules. Hence, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.