M G VAJRAVELU Vs. CHIEF ENGINEER, (DISTRIBUTION) COIMBATORE REGION AND SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER COIMBATORE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) It has been stated that the petitioner is working as an Assistant Executive Engineer, Moyar Camp, Niligris Electricity Distribution Circle, under the Tamilnadu Electricity Board. When the petitioner was working as an Assistant Engineer, Palathurai, from 22.2.93 to 26.8.95, a charge memo, dated 27.2.96, had been issued by the second respondent, alleging that he had gone to the farm house of one Chinna Kuppammal of chockanur Village, along with one Santha Kumar, the Commercial Assistant, during the month of February, 1995 and demanded a bribe of Rs. 1500/- for speeding up the extension work for effecting an agricultural service connection. It was further alleged that Chinnakuppammal, along with her son Selvaraj, had visited Palathurai Section Office after three days and gave Rs. 200/- to the petitioner as bribe, constituting a grave misconduct, as per the Regulations of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. The petitioner was asked to submit an explanation for the charges levelled against him. Thereafter, the petitioner had submitted a letter to the second respondent, on 13.5.96, requesting the second respondent furnish a copy of the complaint given by Chinnakuppammal, and a copy of the report of the Vigilance Inspector and the statement given by the Commercial Assistant, Santha Kumar. The second respondent had sent a letter, dated 16.7.96, stating that a copy of the complaint and the statement given by Santha Kumar could be verified by the petitioner at the time of the enquiry and that the copy of the vigilance report cannot be given to him.

(3.) It has been further stated that without receiving the explanation from the petitioner and without furnishing the documents requested by him, the second respondent had ordered for an enquiry, vide letter, dated 20.7.96. The petitioner had submitted his defence statement, on 7.11.96, denying the charges. Thereafter, an enquiry had been held and a copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer was forwarded to the second respondent. After more than seven and half months, the second respondent had sent to the petitioner a memo, dated 19.6.97, enclosing a copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer, disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. The petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation, within seven days from the date of receipt of the memo. The petitioner had submitted his explanation, on 5.7.97. The second respondent, by an order, dated 20.9.97, had imposed the punishment of 'Postponement of his next increment for one year, with cumulative effect, including the period, if any, spent on leave'. As against the final order passed by the second respondent, the petitioner had preferred an appeal to the first respondent, on 30.12.97. The first respondent, without assigning any reason, rejected the appeal by an order, dated 19.2.98, which was communicated to the petitioner, on 29.5.99. Aggrieved by the orders of the second respondent dated 20.9.97 and the order of the first respondent, dated 19.2.98, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.