PALANI K Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER VELLORE ELECTRICITY SYSTEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who was working as a foreman in the electricity department, has filed this writ petition to quash an order of removal passed by the Superintending Engineer, Vellore Electricity System, Katpadi Extensions, dated 30 August 1963, and confirmed by the order of the Chief Distribution Engineer for Electricity, dated 11 June 1964, and by the order of the Chief Engineer, dated 5 August 1964.

(2.) THE short facts that led to the filing of the writ petition are as follows. In the year 1965 the petitioner joined the electricity department as a nominal member of the roll and in the year 1959 he was promoted as a foreman and in the year 1962 he was transferred to Kannamangolam as construction foremen. While he was working as construction foreman, various instances were brought to the notice of the higher authorities that be was indulging to corruption by demanding moneys for effecting supply of electricity either for installation of pumpsets or for domestic purposes. The Superintending Engineer, Vellore, issued a memorandum, dated 18 June 1862, to the petitioner alleging that one Kuppuswami Gounder at Kannamangalam had complained to them that the petitioner was demanding Rs. 10 as illegal gratification for the speedy disposal of the supply of electricity to his pump-sets in the village. It was also alleged in the memorandum that the petitioner induced the said Kuppuswami Gounder to give a bribe of Rs. 80 to the supervisor, construction, Kannamangalam. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 8 July 1962. The Superintending Engineer framed three charges as follows:

(3.) NOTHING happened till 9 May 1963. While he was working 10 miles away from Kannamangalam, the Junior Engineer sent for him and served a memorandum at 10 a. m. informing him that an enquiry was to be held at Arni 24 miles away from Kannamangulam at 3 p. m. and be was directed to appear with all the defence witnesses. The petitioner was in a fix and doubted whether he could take part in the enquiry effectively. Therefore, he preferred a petition bringins to the notice of the enquiry officer that he could peruse the connected record and prepare his defence and bring the defence witnesses, if necessary, and wanted adjournment of the enquiry by fifteen days. The petitioner has also stated that in the charge-memorandum the name of Sri Kuppuswami Gounder was alone cited but the connected records were not supplied to him till then, even in spite of asking for them, that in his letter, dated 20 March 1963, he had requested for an opportunity to examine the supervisor, construction, and that from reference 6; it was noted that such opportunity was not arrenged, that since the memorandum was served only on 9 May 1963, ha was completely made unable to prepare his defence, that he might be supplied with all the connected records before actual enquiry began and that therefore the proposed enquiry might be adjourned to a later date. The enquiry officer summarily rejected his application and proceeded with the enquiry, and all the witnesses assembled in the room were examined in each other's presence. The petitioner was cross-examined by the presiding officer and was asked to sign in the enquiry proceedings. On 10 May 1863, the petitioner sent a petition to the Superintending Engineer bringing out to his notion 111 detail that he was not given a reasonable opportunity to prepare his defence and to examine witnesses in defence. He alleged that there was no proper enquiry on 9 May 1963 and that as the presiding offices had threatened him of serious consequences, if he did not sign as required, he accepted the enquiry as an enquiry. The departmental authorities did not care to send a reply to this petition. On 8 July 1963, a second show-cause notice was given to the petitioner why he should not he dismissed from service. On 16 August 1863, the petitioner submitted his explanation but it was misdirected by the Assistant Engineer to the Divisional Engineer, and ultimately the Superintending Engineer received is only on 27 August 1968, Long before that date, that is, on 30 August 1968, the petitioner was dismissed from service on the ground that the petitioner had not submitted his explanation to the second show-cause notice. The petitioner has filed this wilt petition to quash the order dated 30 August 1963.