A PITCHAMUTHU Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER DHARMAPURI ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CIRCLE TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT Appeal filed against the order dated 15th March, 2002, passed by learned single Judge in W.P. No,2226 of 1997.)The appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner'), having unsuccessfully challenged the order dated 8th Aug., 1996, passed by the respondent, whereby it was ordered to recover certain amount from his terminal benefits, has preferred this writ appeal.The main plea taken by the appellant is that the respondent cannot recover any amount from his terminal benefits in the absence of any rule.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case is that the petitioner, while posted as Stores Custodian with the respondent - Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') during December, 1988, the stores were checked by a Special Team, Madras, which found 56 items were in shortage. THE respondent issued a show cause notice on 22nd May, 1989, as to why cost of materials found short should not be recovered from him to which the petitioner replied on 5th June, 1989. Being not satisfied, another notice was issued on 26th July, 1989 by which the respondent directed to state as to why cost of materials, worked out at Rs.1,50,689.37 plus cartage and handling charges should not be recovered from the petitioner. THE petitioner, thereafter, sent a reply on 3rd Aug., 1989.It appears that the respondent, thereafter, initiated departmental proceeding for dereliction of duty for similar charge and suspended the petitioner. In the said departmental proceeding, charge having found proved, order of demotion to the lower post for a period of three years was passed on 6th June, 1991. At that stage, the petitioner filed a suit, O.S. No,390/91 and obtained an order of temporary injunction, which was made absolute on 27th Aug., 1991. Due to injunction order and pendency of the suit, he continued in the service against the higher post and retired on 30th June, 1995, on attaining the age of superannuation. THE suit was dismissed on 29th July, 1995, on merit, holding that the petitioner would not be entitled to the relief sought for by him.

(3.) WE have heard the counsel for the parties and noticed their relevant contentions.