S E CIVIL HYDRO PROJECT Vs. S SIVAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") are the respondents in W. P. No. 17778 of 1993 filed by the respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as "the employee")challenging the order dated June 21, 1993, whereunder the Board proposed to recover a sum of Rs. 26,628. 30 towards the loss sustained by the Board, due to the neglect of work found to have been committed by the enquiry in a disciplinary action initiated against him pursuant to the charge memo dated July 18, 1989. Conceededly, two charges were framed against the employee in the departmental enquiry, viz. , (i) that he committed a misconduct of neglect of work attracting Tamil Nadu 'electricity Board standing Order 19 (ix) with respect to the workmen engaged in Clerical department of the board, as he failed to verify the stock of explosives in the stores, till April 20, 1989; and (ii) that he committed a misconduct of having stolen explosives, viz. , (a) Superdyne 600 Kgs; and (b) Electric Detonators- 4500 Nos. , which were entrusted to him as a custodian of the stores, attracting Standing Order 19 (i) and 19 (iii) of the workmen engaged in the Clerical department of the Board.

(2.) AFTER due enquiry, the Enquiry Officer in his report dated December 18, 1989 found that the first charge referred to above was proved, however, the second charge was not proved. Pursuant to the said enquiry report dated December 18, 1989, a punishment was imposed on the employee awarding stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect and thereafter, by a notice dated June 21, 1993, which is impugned in the writ petition, the board proposed to recover a sum of Rs. 26,628. 30 from the employee towards the loss sustained by the Board and the same was challenged by the employee in W. P. No. 17778 of 1993, on two grounds, viz. , (i) that he had already suffered a punishment of stoppage of increment without cumulative effect with respect to the impugned disciplinary action and therefore, the impugned recovery proceedings amounts to double jeopardy; and (ii) that he had not been issued any show cause notice before initiating the impugned recovery proceedings.

(3.) THE writ petition was resisted by the board on the ground that in view of the finding of the Enquiry Officer that the employee had committed a neglect of work attracting Tamil nadu Electricity Board Standing Order 19 (ix)with respect to the workmen engaged in Clerical department of the Board, which has become final, and the consequential punishment imposed on the employee there is no necessity to issue a fresh show cause notice. It was also contended on behalf of the Board that the impugned recovery proceedings having been initiated to recover the loss sustained by the Board cannot be construed as a double punishment.