A BALASUBRAMANIAN Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT Petition praying for issue of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the 2nd respondent made in Memo No. 08487-1/pr. 439/cdl/gedc/gobi/adm/a1/96-1 dated 11. 10. 1996 as confirmed by 3rd respondent in his proceedings dated 17. 4. 1997 and to quash the order of the 2nd respondent dated 11-10-1996 and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all attendant benefits.

(2.) IN the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the petitioner would submit that he is a diploma holder in Electrical Engineering; that he got first appointed as temporary Casual Labourer in the year 1970 in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and thereafter he was permanently absorbed as Switch Board Attendant on 22. 2. 1973; that he got promoted as Tester Grade-I in August 1978 and then as Foreman Grade-I in December 1986 and thereafter as Junior Engineer Grade II in the year 1987 and as Junior Engineer Grade-I in June 1990; that as Junior Engineer Grade-I, he had to deal with the general public and had to do field work like wireman, Lineman and work with other higher Officials like Assistant Executive Engineer, Assistant Divisional Engineer etc. ; that when applications for agricultural service connections are registered, a readiness report is communicated on receipt of sanction from the Higher Officials; that when sanction is received for various service connections, the service connections where lesser work is involved would be carried out first and which requires more work are taken up later; that in view of this, there would be some delay and it would not be according to the serial number of the applications received; that in some cases, without orders from the higher officials, the wireman or lineman would effect the service connections anticipating work orders based on paper orders from the Superiors.

(3.) THE petitioner would further submit in the affidavit that on 19. 10. 1995 the first respondent/executive Engineer issued an order of suspension to the petitioner, which was followed by a charge memo. dated 13. 11. 1995 for some alleged deviations while carrying out the work; that none of the charges indicated any corrupt practices on the part of the petitioner; that in the normal course, the Electricity Board would impose only minor penalties for such mistakes; that the petitioner submitted his explanation on 30. 12. 1995; that the Executive Engineer conducted an enquiry and thereafter, a written defence was submitted on 4. 4. 1996 running to nine pages; that after one month another charge memo. was issued by the Superintending Engineer dt. 16. 3. 1996 for similar or identical reasons; that the petitioner submitted his explanation on 20. 5. 1995; that the first respondent was appointed as an Enquiry Officer and the petitioner submitted his defence on 14. 8. 1996; that thereafter, a second show-cause notice was issued on 11. 9. 1996, for which the petitioner submitted his explanation on 13. 9. 1996; that the 2nd respondent in a mechanical manner issued the proceedings dated 11. 10. 1996 imposing the penalty of removal from service; that the petitioner sought for time to file an Appeal and thereafter, filed the Appeal and the third respondent rejected the same by his proceedings dated 17. 4. 1997 and having aggrieved, the petitioner has come forward to file the above writ petition praying for the relief extracted supra.