H RAJKUMAR Vs. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these cases, as common judgment is under challenge, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE appellants, who were the writ petitioners (hereinafter referred to as "the petitioners"), are working as Helpers in the respondent-Electricity Board. THEy were suspended and proceeded departmentally by the charge memo dated 1st July, 2005. THE learned single Judge having dismissed the writ petitions preferred by the petitioners against the initiation of departmental proceedings by the charge memo dated 1st July, 2005, the present appeals have been preferred. THE learned single Judge dismissed the writ petitions on two counts, (i) that this court normally should not go into the merits of the contentions raised by the employees against disciplinary authority at the stage of the charge memo and (ii) in view of the liberty given by the Division Bench against the charged employees, it was open to the disciplinary authority to initiate departmental proceedings.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, while reiterating the same plea as was taken before the learned single Judge and noticed above, referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in A.L.Kalra v. Project & Equipment Corporation of India Ltd. 1984 (3) SCC 316, wherein the Court observed that if what is alleged as misconduct does not constitute misconduct not by analysis or appraisal of evidence, but under the rules, the authority has no power or jurisdiction to impose any penalty for the alleged misconduct. If the alleged misconduct does not constitute a misconduct within the rules, no punishment can be imposed. Reliance was also placed on the Supreme Court decision in Glaxo Laboratories (I) Limited v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Meerut, 1984 (1) SCC 1. In the said case, the Supreme Court observed that it cannot be left to the vagaries of the management to say ex post facto that some acts of omission or commission nowhere found to be enumerated in the relevant standing order is nonetheless a misconduct not strictly falling within the enumerated misconduct in the relevant standing order but yet a misconduct for the purpose of imposing a penalty. THE contention of the counsel for the petitioners that some other act of misconduct which would per se be an act of misconduct, though not enumerated in the standing order, was rejected. THE learned counsel referred to the Standing Orders Manual of the Electricity Board and the Standing Order 30 regarding "Acts and Omissions constituting Misconduct" has been enumerated. Referring to the same, it was submitted that the so called allegations made in the charge memo do not constitute any act and omission constituting misconduct.