R SANTHAKUMARI Vs. GENERAL MANAGER CHENNAI METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATION VC DEPT CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order of the first respondent, dated 23.6.2005, confirming the orders passed by the second and third respondents, in proceedings, dated 1.3.2005 and 27.9.2004 respectively and for further orders.

(2.) FACTS leading to the writ petition are as follows: The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant in the respondent Board in the year 1982 and promoted as Junior Accounts Officer in 2003. On 28.9.2003, the petitioner was temporarily diverted from Finance Department and posted at Area VI Office as AIFO under the Control of SAO VI, Smt. N. Leela and she joined duty on 30.9.2003. Subsequently, she was relieved from Area VI Office on 29.4.2004 and posted at I.A. Wing. During the tenure at Area VI Office, she was directed to collect pending arrears since 1988 in Divisions 90 to 92, in addition to her normal duties. While she was serving in the said Office, the third respondent issued a show cause notice, dated 12.1.2004 to the petitioner, calling upon her to explain to the following charges, otherwise action would be taken against her for violation of Rules 6(1) and 6(4) of the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1978, (hereinafter referred to the "D & A Rules"):

(3.) THOUGH several grounds were raised in the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the sole ground of violation of principles of natural justice and failure to adhere to the procedure contemplated under the Madras Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1978. Referring to the Schedule to the Regulations, he submitted that the Vigilance Officer, having decided to conduct an enquiry, ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the witness and record her objections. Failure to do so, has resulted in miscarriage of justice and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.