B PADMANABAN Vs. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the Order of the Respondents ordering recovery of Rs.90,241/-, towards cost of shortage of 8.790 M.Ts of M.S.Channels, during the delivery taken from the railways, the Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

(2.) BACKGROUND facts in a nutshell are as follows " 2.1. The Petitioner while working as Stores Custodian Grade I Transport, had been deputed to M/s.SAIL Bangalore for arranging to dispatch Iron and Steel raw materials i.e. M.S.Channel 200 x 7.5 mm to Korukkupet, Chennai. The Petitioner had gone to Bangalore and on 16.05.1991, he had dispatched iron and steel materials in three wagons from SAIL Private siding Channasandra [CSDR] Bangalore to Korukkupet, Chennai. Out of the three wagons, two wagons were received at Korukkupet Goods Shed [KOKG] on 10.06.1991 and 16.06.1991 respectively, with correct weighment. 2.2. The third wagon No.WR 13402 arrived at Korukkupet sent under R.R.No.715131 dated 16.06.1991 arrived on 20.08.1991 after an abnormal delay of about ninety days. The Petitioner, the then Stores Custodian, had attended Korukkupet Goods Shed on 20.08.1991 to clear the consignment. Out of total despatch of 492 M.Ts, delivery was taken only for 40.410 M.Ts of M.S.Channels in the third wagon, with a shortage of quantity of 8.790 M.Ts and the cost of the shortage materials short is Rs.90,241/-. 2.3. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board [in short, 'the TNEB'], has filed application O.A.No.1/40/94 before the Railway Claims Tribunal under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act for recovery of Rs.90,241.50, together with costs, for non-delivery of materials consigned by Rail. Holding that the applicant/TNEB has not established the shortage and that delivery was effected under Clear Receipt, Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim application by the Order dated 11.07.2003. 2.4. As there was shortage by 8.790 M.Ts., charge was framed against the Petitioner in Memo dated 10.01.1999, alleging that due to his negligence in duty, the Board has sustained loss of Rs.90,241. The Executive Engineer, North Chennai Thermal Power Station, was appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry on the charges framed against the Petitioner. Holding that charge has been proved, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report. Accepting the findings of the Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority issued second Show Cause in the memo dated 31.08.1998. Inspite of opportunity, the Petitioner did not submit any reply to the said Show Cause Notice. The second Respondent confirmed the punishment proposed in the Show Cause Notice i.e. Recovery of Rs.90,241 from the Petitioner towards the cost of shortage of 8.790 M.T.s of M.S.Channels. As against that Order of punishment of recovery, the Petitioner filed appeal to the third Respondent " Chief Engineer. By the Order dated 08.01.2001, the third Respondent has dismissed the appeal, which is challenged in this Writ Petition.

(3.) ON the materials produced, the Enquiry Officer found that the charge of negligence is proved. Both the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority have accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer as satisfactory. In a catena of decisions, it is well settled that High Court is not constituted in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as a Court of appeal over the decision of the authority holding of departmental enquiry. High Court is concerned to determine whether enquiry is held by the authority competent in that behalf and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf and whether rules of natural justice are violated or not, whether there is some evidence, which the authority, entrusted with the duty to hold enquiry, has accepted the same and found that the delinquent Officer is guilty of the charge. Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is not the function of the High Court,, to review evidence and arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. [see State of Andhra pradesh & Others Vs. Sree Rama Rao - AIR 1963 SC 1723; Apparel Export Promotion Council Vs. A.K.Chopra - AIR 1999 SC 625; The High Court of Judicature At Bombay Vs. S.Patil & Another - AIR 2000 SC 22.