R JAYABALAN Vs. CHAIRMAN TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to the present writ petitions are as follows : -

(2.) IN course of hearing of the present writ petitions, learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order of compulsory retirement on several grounds. He has submitted that the incidents on the basis of which charge memo was issued related to the period prior to 1985, and therefore, after deciding to drop the earlier disciplinary proceedings, the Board should not have started a fresh disciplinary proceedings after a long delay. It is also contended that at the subsequent enquiry, no witnesses had been examined on behalf of the Board nor any documents had been brought on record, and the enquiry officer prepared an enquiry report holding the petitioner guilty of the charges on the basis of his own personal knowledge and not on the basis of the legal materials on record. It is also contended that after enquiry report was furnished, the petitioner had filed a detailed explanation dated 24.1.1997 and yet the disciplinary authority, that is to say, the Board, mechanically accepted the report of the enquiry officer and decided to take action even without considering the detailed representation made by the petitioner. It is further contended that the review petition, which is contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Employee’s Discipline and Appeal Regulations, has been rejected by the Board in a mechanical manner without application of mind. It is submitted that at any rate, even assuming that the allegations had been established in full, the order of compulsory retirement is grossly disproportionate to the nature of delinquency and cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel has also further submitted that the Board has committed illegality in treating the major portion of the period, during which the petitioner had remained on suspension, as leave on loss of pay.

(3.) AFTER the counsels from both sides were heard at length, matter was directed to be listed under the heading "for being mentioned" to enable the learned counsel for the Board to find out whether instead of compulsory retirement, any other punishment could be imposed. This was so because, at that stage, this Court was prima facie of the opinion that the Board’s proceedings had not been conducted in a proper manner, and more particularly, the detailed representation given by the petitioner had not been considered at all. Subsequently, when the matter was taken up, the learned counsel appearing for the Board on instructions submitted that it was not possible for the Board to reconsider the punishment imposed.