G ANANDAM Vs. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the memo dated 12. 1. 1990 issued by the second respondent, the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the same as illegal and without jurisdiction.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder : When he was working as Deputy Financial Controller in Villupuram, he was appointed as the Enquiry Officer to enquire into certain charges of misconduct against S. Kandasamy, Assistant Accounts Officer; R. Thiyagarajan, Assistant accounts Officer; M. Kathirvelu, Accounts Supervisor; S. Ramachandran, Accounts supervisor; T. Ganesan, Assistant and M. Sharufuddin, Assistant, all working in thiruvannamalai Electricity Distribution Circle, Thiruvannamalai, for having colluded with M. Subramaniam, Assistant Engineer (C and I), Pudupalayarn, in causing loss to the Board to the tune of Rs. 4. 48 lakhs and also to enquire into certain charges of submitted bogus hand receipts etc. , against C. N. Kannan, Lineman (C and I), Pudupalayam and M. Subramaniam, then Assistant engineer (C and I), Pudupalayam. THE enquiries were conducted separately against each individual. In the enquiry, he found that C. N. Kannan was guilty of the charges. As regards M. Subramaniam, he could not complete the enquiry against all the four charges levelled against him, since in the meanwhile, he was transferred to Madras . However, he had completed the enquiry into the first charge against the said M. Subramaniam, and he submitted his findings with regard to that only holding him guilty of the first charge. With regard to the four delinquents viz. , kathirvelu, Ramachandran, Ganesan and Sharufuddin, no evidence was let in or oral evidence let in to establish the charge of collusion and hence, he found them not guilty. As regards S. Kandasamy and Thiyagarajan also, he found them not guilty. In fact, S. Kandasamy, the then Assistant Accounts Officer had retired from service even before the enquiry was started. He submitted his individual findings to the 2nd respondent, who appears to have disagreed with his (petitioner's) findings in so far as he found the six persons in the Accounts branch not guilty. While so, he was surprised to receive the impugned memo, calling upon him to explain as to why he should not proceed against departmentally for having found not guilty the said S. Kandasamy, Assistant accounts Officer, M. Kathirvelu, Accounts Supervisor, S. Ramachandran, Accounts supervisor, T. Ganesan, Assistant and M. Sharufuddin, Assistant, on the ground that his findings are perverse and he has been dishonest in his Board's work in finding them not guilty. THEre is no allegation that the petitioner held failed in the discharge of his duty as Deputy Financial Controller. In spite of his explanation, the 2nd respondent has appointed the third respondent as an enquiry Officer, in his memo dated 12. 3. 1990. Even a mere look at the charge memo will show that the facts stated therein are incorrect. THEre is no allegation of any corrupt practice against him in holding the delinquents in question'not guilty'. Hence the impugned memo is totally without jurisdiction, illegal and void, arbitrary and is vitiated by mala rides besides being violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) IN the light of the charge framed against the petitioner Mr. N. G. R. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has brought to my notice the report of the Enquiry Officer and the entire enquiry proceedings conducted by the petitioner in respect of the charge of misconduct made against K. Kandasamy, R. Thiyagarajan, M. Kathirvelu, S. Ramachandran, T. Ganesan and M. Sharufuddin. It is seen that the above said persons while working in Thiruvannamalai Electricity Distribution Circle, in collusion with one M. Subramaniam, Assistant Engineer (C and I), Pudupalayam, caused loss to the Board to the tune of Rs. 4. 48 lakhs. The petitioner herein was also asked to enquire into certain charges of submitting bogus Hand receipts etc. , against C. N. Kannan, Lineman, Pudupalayam and M. Subramaniam, then Assistant Engineer, Pudupalayam. The specific allegations against the said m. Subramaniam and C. N. Kannan were that they had in collaboration with some of the relatives of the said C. N. Kannan, created bogus hand-receipts, imprest vouchers and received money from the Board to the tune of Rs. 4. 48 lakhs. As regards the other 6 persons mentioned above, the specific allegations were that they colluded with the said M. Subramaniam, Assistant Engineer. IN the case of enquiry relating to Kandasamy, it is seen that the Enquiry Officer, petitioner herein, considered the statement of the delinquent and other records. After analysing the entire materials placed before him, he came to the conclusion in the following manner : ". . . I conclude that Thiru S. Kandasarny has acted only in the interest of the Board's work in good faith. There is no negligence whatsoever from the side of the delinquent officer. Since there is no negligence on his part, the financial loss of Rs. 19, 893. 00 in respect of the 18 Nos. Hand receipts cannot be attributed to the delinquent officer. The financial loss is only attributed to the other staff who have involved in the above scandal. 1 therefore state that Thiru S. Kandasamy, the then Assistant accounts Officer/t. V. Malai Elecy. Distin. Circle/accounts Officer, Kadamparai, pumped storage Hydro Electric Project, Minparai (now retired) is not at all responsible for this charge. I again state that the charge levelled against the above officer in Superintending Engineer/t. V. Malai Memo NO. SF/t. Admn. 3/a. 2/f. 126/88, dated 17. 12. 1988 is not proved". Similar conclusion has been arrived at in the disciplinary action in respect of R. Thiyagarajan, the then Assistant Accounts officer, Tiruvannamalai. IN the enquiries conducted against others, Mr. Prasad has took me through the entire enquiry proceedings, which are included in the typed-set of papers. IN the enquiry, he found that C. N. Kannan was found guilty. As regards the charges levelled against M. Subramaniam, he could not complete the enquiry, since he was transferred to Madras. However, it is clear that he has completed the enquiry into the first charge and he submitted his findings with regard to that only holding him guilty of the first charge. As started earlier, in the light of the allegations made against the petitioner, who was Enquiry Officer in the earlier enquiry proceedings, I have gone through the entire enquiry report relating to all the persons and I am unable to share the conclusion arrived at by the 2nd Respondent, namely, that the petitioner as enquiry Officer failed to analyse the charges properly. When sufficient materials are lacking on the side of the management, it is always open to the enquiry Officer to arrive at a decision and hold against them with reference to the materials placed before him. As stated earlier, he had considered the statement of delinquent officers and perused the relevant records and finally came to the conclusion that except C. N. Kannan and M. Subramaniam, (first charge alone), there is no material in respect of the charges levelled against them.