LAWS(MAD)-2009-10-218

J KUPPUSWAMY Vs. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

Decided On October 19, 2009
J. KUPPUSWAMY Appellant
V/S
TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The orders of the respondents in (Permanent) B.P.(CH)No. 212, dated 23.8.1999 and the consequential order passed in Memorandum No. 79295/A5/A51/99-1, dated 10.12.1999, are under challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) Petitioner, a B.E. Graduate of 1963 Batch of Madras University, joined T.N.E.B. as Assistant Engineer on 21.6.1964. He was promoted at regular intervals i.e., to say as Assistant Executive Engineer in the year 1970; as Executive Engineer in the year 1986 and as Superintending Engineer in the year 1997. His retirement was due on 28.2.1998. When he was about to retire after putting in 33/4 years of service, to his shock and surprise, a charge memo was issued in No. 16 (DD) 1/98-3, dated 12.2.1998, by the respondents, The charges are as follows: "Charge-1: That Thiru J. Kuppuswamy, while he was Superintending Engineer/Materials Management - I submitted note to the Chief Engineer/Materials Management for procurement of SWG G.I Stranded wire of the sizes of 7/11 and 7/12 against specification Nos. 11 and 12 during September 1997. The tender committee had approved the procurement of 810 MT for Specification No. 11 and 900 MT for Specification No. 12. That Thiru J. Kuppuswamy, as Superintending Engineer/Materials Management - I sought orders for procuring reduced quantity of the materials at 360 MT only for each of the specifications, even though as per the direction of the Board Level Tender Committee, orders should be placed only after obtaining approval of Account Member, with a mala fide intention to bring the procurement orders within the Chief Engineer's powers. Thus he has failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and thereby contravened Regulation 3 (a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Employees' Conduct Regulations. Charge-2: That Thiru J. Kuppuswamy, while he was Superintending Engineer/Materials Management-I scrutinised the relevant office notes and put up the notes during September 1997 to the Chief Engineer/Materials Management for approval to place orders with Bharat Wire Rope Manufacturing Company, Mumbai for supply of SWG G.I. Stranded Wires of two sizes viz., Ill 1 and 7/12 against specification Nos. M-11 and M-12 despite the fact that the said company was a new entrant to the Board in regard to the supply of the said materials. Thus he has failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and thereby contravened Regulation 3 (a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Employees' Conduct Regulations. Charge-3: That Thiru J.Kuppuswamy, while he was Superintending Engineer/Materials Management-I put up a note on 9.10.1997 to the Chief Engineer/Materials Management suggesting to waive the pre-despatch inspection of the materials viz., SWG G.I. Stranded Wires covered by Specification Nos. M-11 and M-12, at Bharat Wire Rope Manufacturing Company, Mumbai, on plea of urgency. The said note was approved by the Chief Engineer/Materials Management on 9.10.1997. But, the delivery details reveal that the very purpose of waiver of pre-inspection had been defeated as the company has failed to supply the materials within the specified time as per delivery clause. Thus he has failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and thereby contravened Regulation 3(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Employees' Conduct Regulations."

(3.) To the above charges, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 21.2.1998, denying the charges and further explaining that he was not responsible for the reduction of quantity of procurement. He had explained in his explanation dated 21.2.1998 and subsequent clarifications that a team of officers was responsible for decision making and the ultimate approving authority was the C.E. (MM). In spite of the said reply, the Chief Engineer (Protection & Communication) was appointed as the Enquiry Officer by Board's Memo No. 16/DDI/98-6, dated 28.2.1998, and the Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry on 25.4.1998, 27.4.1998, 4.5.1998 and 10.6.1998. During the enquiry, the petitioner had raised two objections viz., copy of preliminary enquiry report was not furnished and that the C.E.(MM) was not examined as a witness.