NATARAJAN M Vs. MADRAS STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition Is filed for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the Madras State Electricity Board represented by the Superintending Engineer, Mettur Electricity System, and to quash his order made in Memorandum No. ADM. 1/04/1734/66, dated 8 July 1966, reverting the petitioner as cleaner, II grade, from the post of lorry-driver, II grade.

(2.) THE petitioner joined the Electricity Department of the Government of Madras In September 1949, as mechanic. When the State Electricity Board took over the electric supply, the petitioner's services were transferred to the board. At that time he was a lineman-driver. In 1964 certain charges were framed against the petitioner. On 10 April 1964, a memorandum was given to the petitioner charging him that he failed to deliver a letter which was intended for a superior officer. The petitioner was also charged that he failed to follow instructions before taking a vehicle from Mettur Dam to Salem. The petitioner offered an explanation and the first chargesheet was given to the petitioner on 11 June 1964. In this chargesheet in addition to the two charges mentioned in this memorandum dated 10 April 1964, namely, nondelivery of a letter to an officer and failure to take instructions before taking a vehicle, a third charge was added, namely, that the explanation he submitted was false. The third charge related to the giving of the false statement in explaining the two charges given to him under the memorandum dated 10 April 1961. The second chargesheet was given to the petitioner on 26 March. 1965, which related to making a false claim for travelling allowance for three days in October 1964. Subsequently, another memorandum was issued on 29 March 1965, charging the petitioner with taking a nondepartmental man in van. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 6 April 1965 and a chargesheet was given to the petitioner in which, in addition to the charge mentioned in the memorandum, that he misused the van, the charge that he suppressed the facta of the case in his explanation was also framed. A fourth memorandum was given on 21 April 1965, alleging that the petitioner failed to maintain the van properly. The petitioner submitted an explanation and the fourth chargesheet was served on the petitioner on 22 July 1965 In which, in addition to the charge that he failed to maintain the van properly, a charge that he suppressed fall facts was also framed against him. An enquiry was conducted and a provisional show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 6 April 1966, and on 8 July 1968, the impugned order reverting the petitioner to the post of cleaner was passed.

(3.) IN this writ petition, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order is not maintainable on the ground that the reduction of the petitioner as cleaner is contrary to Rule 31 of the Madras State Electricity Board Standing Orders which provides that no workman shall be demoted to any post or grade lower than to which he was initially recruited under the board. Secondly, it was contended that the enquiry officer was prejudiced as, after receiving the explanation to the three memoranda, an additional charge for suppressing the facts was framed against him. It was submitted that the enquiring officer in rejecting the explanation and framing a charge on the basis that the explanation is false has prejudged the issue and, therefore, even the charges relating to the other matters are not sustainable.