K SUBRAMANIAN Vs. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the arguments of Mr. S. Balasubramanian and Mr.A.Jinasenan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.M.Vaidyanathan, learned Standing Counsel for the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board [for short, 'TNEB'] and perused the records.

(2.) W.P. No. 9867 of 1998 is filed by one K. Subramanian against the order in B.P. (Ch) No. 155 dated 11.6.1998 by which he was removed from the services of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. He joined the service as a Junior Engineer on 22.7.1963 and was promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer on 18.6.1971. He was finally promoted as an Executive Engineer w.e.f. 20.6.1986. In the normal course, he would have reached the age of superannuation on 30.11.1996. However, he was placed under suspension four months prior to his retirement viz., on 25.7.1996. In fact, even after the suspension, his name was included in the panel for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer by proceedings dated 07.8.1996. A charge-memo dated 25.10.1996 was given to him alleging that while working as Executive Engineer (O&M), Perundurai, he was receiving bribe of Rs.50/- per meter from one M. Ranganathan, who was Stores Custodian, for the release of single phase Meters from the Sub-Store, Ingur. Four witnesses were cited in the charge-memo. His services were retained beyond the age of superannuation so as to continue the enquiry. An enquiry was conducted on 23.12.1996 and finally, on the basis of the enquiry proceedings, he was asked to show cause on the findings and not satisfied with his explanation and on the basis of the findings recorded in the enquiry, he was removed from the service of the Board by order dated 11.6.1998. It is against this order, the W.P. No. 9867 of 1998 has been filed.

(3.) IN the enquiry against him, five witnesses were examined and three witnesses, viz., a Commercial Assistant, Commercial INspector and a Stores Supervisor, did not support the charges levelled against him. It was only the Vigilance Officer, Coimbatore and INspector of Police, Vigilance, who initially enquired the matter, who were not eye-witnesses, gave evidence against the petitioner. IN fact, the three Board employees deposed in the enquiry that due to the threat held out by the Vigilance, they were forced to give such a statement.