C PERUMAL Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER TAMIL NADU ELECY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner for the issue of certiorari or any other propriate Writ Order of direction calling for records of the first respondent in Memo No. SET/admn. IIIA 1. IF. DIR. 14208/90 dt. July 17, 1990 and to quash the same.-

(2.) THE case of the Writ Petitioner as seen from the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition runs as follows: The petitioner was appointed as a nominal muster roll employeed by the first respondent in the year 1967. In 197 1, he was promoted to the post of helper. On October 1, 1977, he was further promoted as Wireman under the control of the first respondent. 1, During 1987, he was posted to Valapandal. One Palaniswamy, Junior Engineer, was posted in the area. There was misunderstanding between the said J. E. and the petitioner. The petitioner's wife was suffering from cancer and she was admitted in Hospital at Madras for treatment. Later on, she was admitted in the Govt. Arignar Anna Memorial Cancer Hospital, Kanchipuram on 'april. 21, 1989. She was in the said hospital as inpatient for about 1 1/2 months from April 2,, 21, 1989 and was discharged from there during May, 1989. The doctors advised him to take his wife to the Cancer Institute at Madras. 'merefore, the petitioner applied for one month leave from June 16, 1989. Since the petitioner's 3 (wife's condition was deteriorating, the petitioner gave a letter to the second respondent on June 4, 1989 to advance the leave from June 4, 1989 instead of June 16, 1989. The leave letter was handed over to the 2nd respondent in Person and there upon the petitioner took his wife for treatment. Even though his wife was in the hospital, after the expiration of the leave, the petitioner joined duty on July 1, 1989. Then, the petitioner met with an accident due to fall, (from cycle, and his right hand was injured. Therefore, he requested the authorities to sanction one month leave on medical ground from July 23, 1989 to August 22, 1989. He also enclosed medical certificate. Even though the second respondent is not the leave sanctioning authority, he referred the petitioner's leave application to the Medical Board with vindictive motive of harassing the petitioner. 'me petitioner appeared before the Medical Board. The Board issued necessary certificate and fitness certificate to join duty. Accordingly the petitioner joined duty on August 23, 1989. The condition of the petitioner's wife again became very critical and she was again admitted in the hospital. The petitioner also became sick due to heavy strain as he had to attend to his work, attend to his wife who was in hospital and also to attend to three young children. Therefore, the petitioner again applied for one month's leave from August 29, 1989 to September 27, 1989 on medical grounds. The petitioner had about months of medical leave to his credit. According to him, he has taken only a few short spell of leave in his entire service. On August 16, 1989, his wife expired and on September 28, 1989, the petitioner went to the second respondent for reporting duty. He also produced medical fitness certificate from a competent Medical Officer. However, the second respondent did not allow him to sign the attendance register. He told the petitioner that he should appear once again before the Medical Board and get the fitness certificate from the Board. As per the instructions of the second respondent, the petitioner appeared before the Medical Board on October 3, 1989. According to the petitioner and the District Medical Officer simply asked him why he is creating problems with his Engineer. The petitioner told him that he never disobeyed his Officers and he is a sincere worker hailing from a poor family. The District Medical Officer told the petitioner that he would be sending the fitness certificate to the second respondent. Even after the petitioner appeared before the Medical Board, the second respondent did not permit the petitioner to join duty. Salary was also not paid to him. According to the petitioner, all these things were only due to the vindictive attitude and action of the second respondent who was under the impression that the petitioner might have given information about some of his activities to the public and that is why some petitions were sent against him by the local people. The petitioner made representations to the higher authorities and no action was taken to permit the petitioner to join duty. To the shock and surprise of the petitioner, the first respondent by his letter dated July 17, 1990 invalidated the petitioner from service retrospectively from October 16, 1989. Accordingly, the said order, stated to be under Regulations 80 and 85 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations, is arbitrary, illegal and mala fide.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the second respondent is not the sanctioning authority for leave and as such he has no powers to refer the leave application to the Medical Board. It is also stated that no examination was conducted by the Medical Board, and the Medical Officer simply asked the petitioner to pay the medical examination fees of Rs. 50 and clerical expenses of Rs. 25/-for the preparation of the certificate, which the petitioner paid. Therefore, the alleged report of the Medical Board is not based on his examination. The petitioner was not told how he was invalid and in what respect the fitness certificate issued by a competent Medical Officer 3 days earlier cannot be accepted. It is also contended that the impugned order is clearly against Regulations 80 and85 of the Board's Regulations and that Regulations 82 (a), 82 (b) and 82 (c) also were not followed before invalidating the petitioner from service.