N RANGARAJ Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER CHENNAI ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION CIRCLE TAMILNADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed challenging the charge memo dated 12. 12. 2005 issued by the first respondent against the petitioner till the outcome of the criminal case pending in Crime No. 352 of 2005 on the file of the Central Criminal Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai-8.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he has joined in the services of Tamilnadu Electricity Board as an assessor in the year 1985 and promoted as supernumary inspector of assessment in February 2004 and he was last working in the office of the Assistant Executive Engineer, Royapettah-II. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 27. 04. 2005 on the ground that an enquiry into grave charges is pending. It was also stated that the petitioner is involved in misappropriation of Board's money. The Assistant Executive Engineer has filed an First Information Report on the Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai - 8 on 30. 04. 2005 alleging that the petitioner who was in-charge of collecting meter charges from the customers has a duty of depositing the amount into the accounts, tampered the documents and misappropriated the money lawfully due to the Tamilnadu Electricity Board. The said F. I. R. was registered under Sections 409, 477 (A) and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. There was a detailed enquiry and investigation conducted in the Central Crime Branch. While the said criminal case is pending in Crime No. 325 of 2005, the first respondent has framed the impugned Charge Memo on 12. 12. 2005 on the same set of facts. According to the petitioner, the charge is that for the period from June 2000 to March 2005 the petitioner has misappropriated to the tune of Rs. 38,39,087/- by tampering with the Board records. The petitioner has submitted his detailed explanation denying the charges. The petitioner was under the impression that since the criminal case as well as the departmental proceedings are based on the same set of facts, the department proceedings would not continue. However, the first respondent has issued a notice of enquiry on 13. 06. 2006 calling upon the petitioner to appear for an enquiry on 22. 06. 2006. According to the petitioner when he appeared for the enquiry on the said date, apart from the petitioner, the enquiry officer and the presenting officer and one person called Arulanatham were present and there was no examination of witnesses or marking of documents. On the other hand, the presenting officer with the assistance of the enquiry officer has put some questions to the petitioner. There was no departmental enquiry as per the procedures, in which case the official witness has to prove the charge by giving evidence and thereafter giving opportunity to the delinquent to cross examine and thereafter allow the delinquent to produce his witness and such procedure has not been followed.

(3.) IN view of the fact that the criminal case against the petitioner on the same set of facts are pending, any further enquiry in the departmental proceedings will only expose the defence of the petitioner which will detrimentally affect him in effectively defending himself in the criminal case. Relying upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court as well as the Division Bench of this Court, wherein it has been held that when the same set of facts and circumstances are relied upon in both the criminal case as well as in the departmental enquiry, the departmental enquiry has to wait till the criminal case is completed, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for the above said relief.