MANAGING DIRECTOR, TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD Vs. SANTHANARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE official respondents in W.P.No.46859/2002 are the appellants.

(2.) THE respondent herein, who was formerly an Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer was visited with disciplinary proceedings and the Disciplinary Authority has recommended punishment of dismissal from service and it was placed before the Board of Directors of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board [in short 'TNBH'] and after obtaining approval from the Government, he was dismissed from service, vide proceedings of the second respondent dated 19.12.2002 and he made a challenge to the said order by filing the above said writ petition, which was allowed, after contest, on 27.08.2010, setting aside the order of dismissal from service and aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Appeal is filed by the official respondents.

(3.) THE learned Judge, on consideration of the materials placed before him, has found that there is no allegation as of now against the writ petitioner/respondent herein that he committed either fraud or any other illegality which resulted in loss to TNHB and negligence on his part in the performance of his duties in not effectively supervising the functions of other co -delinquents namely Tvl.L.S.Sudandara Doss and Tvl.Eswararaj. The learned Judge, on merits of the case, found that with regard to supply of steel by the Tamil Nadu Steels Corporation, it was not brought to the knowledge of the respondent during his tenure and only after the said company demanded a sum of Rs.10.23 lakhs against the credit supply of steels to the branch, it came to light that steels worth Rs.8,94,204/ - had not been accounted for by Tvl.S.Eswararaj and therefore, the respondent initiated action against him and call for explanation from him on 19.04.1996 and subsequently, the respondent himself had faced disciplinary proceedings. The learned Judge also taken into consideration of the fact that between 19.03.1994 and 03.04.1996, the respondent was not at all working in Anna Nagar Division as he was elsewhere working and the alleged delinquency took place at that point of time. The learned Judge further found that the Enquiry Officer has recorded the finding that the respondent is not guilty of the charges framed against him and though it is open to the Disciplinary Authority to take a different view, for arriving at such a tentative conclusion that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are not correct, he has to assign reasons based on the materials and the grounds for arriving such a conclusion and the memo dated 18.04.2002 sent by the second respondent did not contain any such reason. The learned Judge has also placed reliance upon the decisions in Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra [AIR 1998 SC 2713] and Ramkrishan v. Union of India [1995 (6) SCC 157], wherein it has been held that the mere fact in the final order some reasons have been given to disagree with the conclusions reached by the disciplinary authority cannot cure the defect.