A MANOHARAN Vs. CHAIRMAN TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge made in W. P. No. 12209 of 1995 dated 22. 6. 2001 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein.

(2.) THE brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ appeal are that the appellant was appointed as Helper in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 17. 10. 1981 and completed his probation. The third respondent through his proceeding dated 26. 11. 1993 suspended the appellant on the ground that he got appointment in TNEB by producing false experience certificate. On 30. 12. 1993, the third respondent issued charge memo and the same was denied by the appellant by submitting explanation. Thereafter an enquiry was conducted. During enquiry, the appellant stated that he did not produce any false certificate and he is not having copy of the certificate. It is the case of the appellant that the Enquiry Officer proceeded on the basis that there is vigilance report against the appellant and in spite of the demand to furnish copy of the certificate, it was not furnished by him. It is further stated that no person from the Public Works Department was examined in spite of appellant's request and no one submitted any contra record to show that the appellant never worked in the Public Works Department. After enquiry a show cause notice was issued on 30. 9. 1994 and thereafter on 9. 12. 1994 appellant was removed from service. Appellant preferred an appeal on 6. 1. 1995, which was also rejected on 28. 7. 1995 by the second respondent. Hence the appellant filed W. P. No. 12209 of 1995 and challenged the order of the original authority as well as appellate authority and prayed for reinstatement with backwages and other benefits. The main reason stated in the affidavit for challenging the said orders is that the impugned order was issued without taking into consideration the relevant facts. It is further contended that the allegation is that the appellant produced false experience certificate in the year 1981, but only after verification of the said certificate, appellant was appointed in TNEB and after the lapse of several years, charge memo was issued and enquiry was conducted in the year 1994 based on which removal order is passed, which is unsustainable.

(3.) THE writ petition was dismissed by the learned single Judge holding that the enquiry was conducted properly and no case is made out to interfere with the award of punishment. As against the said dismissal of the writ petition this writ appeal is preferred.