I VIJAYAKUMAR Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD METTUR ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the award dated 29.1.1998 passed by the second respondent confirming the order of dismissal dated 22.8.1988 passed by the first respondent, dismissing the petitioner from the service of the first respondent/Board, the petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in I.D.No.61 of 1997, dated 29.1.1998 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same; and direct the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits. Aggrieved by the award dated 29.1.1998 passed by the second respondent confirming the order of dismissal dated 22.8.1988 passed by the first respondent, dismissing the petitioner from the service of the first respondent/Board, the petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in I.D.No.61 of 1997, dated 29.1.1998 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same; and direct the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.

(2.) Admittedly, a disciplinary action was initiated by the Assistant Executive Engineer by memorandum dated 28.7.1987 and charges were framed against the petitioner for his unauthorised absence with effect from 12.2.1987. The petitioner was served with questionnaire and was also permitted to offer his explanation to the said memorandum. But, the petitioner did not avail the opportunity of submitting an explanation nor answered the questions and therefore, one more opportunity was given to the petitioner to put forth his case before the Enquiry Officer. Before the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner accepted the charges and therefore, the first respondent issued a show cause notice dated 7.12.1987. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 11.1.198 8. However, after taking into consideration the gravity of the charges and particularly the previous conduct of the petitioner, namely ( i) unauthorised absence from 17.4.1982 to 22.9.1985 (three years, five months and five days); and (ii) unauthorised absence from 13.4.1986 to 11.2.1987 (nearly ten months), the first respondent by proceedings dated 22.8.1988 dismissed the petitioner from service with effect from 26.2.1988. Hence, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute, viz., I.D.No.61 of 1997 on the file of the second respondent under Section 2(A)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The second respondent, after full-fledged hearing, by an award dated 29.1.1998 confirmed the order of dismissal passed by the first respondent/Board. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) Mr.C.Selvaraju, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is excessive and therefore, pleads sympathy in the matter of punishment.