T A DHANASEKARAN Vs. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was working as a Junior Engineer in the respondent Electricity Board. Aggrieved by the order dated 5.8.1998 wherein and by which he was imposed with the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect. He was given a show cause notice dated 8.6.1998 alleging that he has committed a misconduct of tampering with records. He submitted an explanation dated 10.7.1988. On the basis of the explanation and the records available, the second respondent imposed the said punishment. An appeal was made against the said order before the first respondent and the same was rejected by the appellate authority by an order dated 19.3.1999.

(2.) THEREAFTER the petitioner moved this court with the present Writ Petition. At the time of admission, the petitioner submitted to this Court that the issue raised in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this court reported in 1998 Writ Law Reporter page 486 (K. Govindaswamy vs. Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd rep. by its Senior Regional Manager, Madras 600 086 and another). But however, the petitioner failed to get any interim order and had suffered the punishment.

(3.) THOUGH the learned counsel says that in that case though this Court was dealing with Rule 16(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Rules, in the present case also there is a similar rule i.e. Regulation 5, which provides for minor penalty. Therefore, the said judgment applies in four corners to this case. He also drew the attention of this Court the unreported judgment of this Court in W.A.No.1241 of 2004 dated 18.8.2007 in M. Rajarathinam vs. State Bank of India and another. In the said judgment, the Division Bench, after referring to Rule 67(b) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules and also after referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Kulwant Singh Gill vs. State of Punjab (1990 Factories Labour Reports 635) held that in the garb of stoppage of increment, if it deprives future increment in the scale of pay permanently, it would amount to a major punishment.