I SUNDARAM Vs. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CIVIL TAMIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been preferred by a Junior Engineer (Civil) Grade 1, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board challenging the order of dismissal dated September 16, 1986 by the second respondent as confirmed by the third respondent dated July 21, 1987.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he was a qualified L. C. E. On August 14, 1973 second respondent appointed the petitioner as Junior Engineer in the Electricity Board. In October, 1979 the petitioner was promoted as Junior Engineer, (Civil) Grade I. During 1985 disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him for 13 charges. An enquiry was conducted after getting his explanation. Enquiry officer has submitted his report on September 3, 1985. He was given second show-case notice for the proposed punishment of dismissal from service. After getting the explanation, the second respondent passed final order on September 16, 1986. He appealed to the Chairman the third respondent herein and the same was rejected on November 7, 1986. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the charge memo was issued by the Chief Engineer (Personnel) who is not the competent authority. Secondly, he contended that a preliminary enquiry ought to have been conducted. Thirdly he submitted that the Chairman has not applied his mind to his appeal, the appeal has been rejected by the Chief Engineer, who passed final order of punishment.

(3.) THE first contention that the disciplinary proceedings ought to have been initiated only by the appointing authority is not tenable in view of the latest Supreme Court decision in Inspector General Of Police v. Thavasiappan on the subject. Hence the first contention is rejected.