R SANKARALINGAM Vs. CHAIRMAN TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the proceedings of the second respondent dated 30.9.1988 and of the first respondent dated 16.2.1990, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition for quashing the same and for direction directing the respondents to reinstate him into service with back wages and other attendant benefits.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: He joined as cashier in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board in the year 1971. After joining service, he has finished his B.Com., graduation in 1974. On 24.12.1984 he was promoted as Inspector of Assessment. While so, he received an order or suspension from the office of the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Pulianthope,Madras, dated 18.1.1988 stating that the petitioner has misappropriated the Board's money to tune of Rs.41,217.50 and an enquiry into grave charges for misconduct was contemplated and he was placed under suspension with effect from 18.1.1988. Five charges have been framed against him and he was asked to submit his explanation within 7 days. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his explanation in respect of all charges on 19.3.1988 wherein he denied all the charges. Without giving proper opportunity to the petitioner, the enquiry officer submitted his report. On the basis of the enquiry report, the third respondent by his notice dated 18.8.1988 issued a show cause notice dated 18.8.1988 called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be reverted as Assessor for three years without cumulative effect and also directed to remit Rs.11,448.30. For the said notice, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 26.8.1988 and also remitted Rs.11,448.30. THE third respondent passed a final order dated 6.8.1988 reverting the petitioner as assessor for three years without cumulative effect. THE third respondent by his memo dated 6.9.1988 revoked the suspension from the date of joining duty and was posted to Santhome Sub Division, Mylapore Division. Accordingly, he joined in the said vacancy on 7.9.1988.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr.A.N.Sivaprakasam, learned counsel for the respondents after taking me through the entire enquiry proceedings, and the ultimate order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority, contended that during the enquiry, the petitioner was given proper and adequate opportunity to put-forth his defence. He also stated that all the document relied on by the management were only with the petitioner, accordingly there is no violation of principles of natural justice in conducting enquiry. He also submitted that the petitioner had deposited the entire amount without any objection, since he had committed the offence of misappropriation. He also contended that the charge memo issued by the Assistant Engineer is in order, since he is the appellate"controlling officer; accordingly he is competent toissue charge memo. He further submitted that subsistence allowance as per the provisions of the Regulations has been duly paid; accordingly the contrary contentions cannot be sustained.