R JAYABALAN Vs. CHAIRMAN TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 31.08.2004 in W.P.No,20809/2000 whereby and where under the challenge to the order of the third respondent regularizing the period between the date of suspension and the date of dismissal of the appellant from service was negatived. Background facts:-

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and later he was promoted as Assistant Divisional Engineer. While so, he was issued with a charge memo during March, 1985 and he was also placed under suspension on 15.03.1985. THE charges related to irregularity in granting on line service connection as well as unauthorized absence. Subsequently, on the basis of the enquiry report, the appellant was dismissed from service as per order dated 29.01.1987. THE said order was challenged in W.P.No,3594/1987 and this Court as per order dated 17.6.1991 quashed the order of dismissal on the ground that the proceeding was in violation of the principles of natural justice, as the report of Enquiry was not given to the appellant. Subsequently, the appellant was informed by the respondents that he is deemed to have been under continuous suspension w.e.f. 29.01.1987 on which date, he was dismissed from service. THE request made by the appellant to reinstate him in service in view of the order passed in W.P.No,3594/1987 was not considered by the respondents. Finally, the appellant was reinstated in service as per proceedings dated 04.02.1993 and he was posted as Assistant Executive Engineer at Kadambari.

(3.) THE Writ Petition filed by the appellant challenging the order of compulsory retirement in W.P.No.14524/1999 as well as W.P.No,20809/2000 challenging the impugned Order dated 11.07.2000 regularizing the period between the date of suspension were taken up together and the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the first respondent Board had completely accepted the report of the enquiry officer without application of mind and as such, the order of compulsory retirement dated 10.03.1998 was vitiated. According to the learned Single Judge, the subsequent order in the review petition was equally vitiated as the said proceeding dated 16.07.1999 does not indicate any reason even though the review petition was on the basis of a specific regulation. In the said circumstances, the learned Judge was of the opinion that on account of non consideration of relevant materials, the order imposing punishment of compulsory retirement cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge quashed the order of punishment of compulsory retirement and granted the following relief:- "19. Having regard to all these aspects, I feel interest of justice would be served by quashing the order of punishment of compulsory retirement and directing that the petitioner shall be deemed to have been reinstated in service. It is further directed that a punishment of with-holding of promotion for a period of one year in 1998 is to be imposed. However, since the petitioner had not actually worked and the departmental proceedings cannot be said to be fully without justification, it is not proper to reward the petitioner with backwages. THE petitioner shall be deemed to have continued in service until his normal date of retirement. THE increments for the extended period would be notionally calculated. THE case of the petitioner shall also be considered for notional promotion for the year 1999 and thereafter shall also be considered. THE pension and other retiral benefits are to be recalculated on the basis of such notional increments and notional promotion, if any, and paid to the petitioner. Such direction should be implemented within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the order."