A K THIRUVIKRAMAN Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER OFFICE; CHIEF ENGINEER/TRANSMISSION, TAMILNADU ELECTRICITY BOARD; CHAIRMAN, TAMILNADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this writ petition is to the proceedings of the first respondent herein in Memo No. Adm/JA2/F:DP/PR. No. 86/98 resulting in the order dated 1.6.1998 and also that of the 2nd respondent herein in his proceedings in Memo No. 117095/CE/TR/PA/S/A1, dated 06.11.1998 and his proceedings in LR. No. CE/TR/PA/A5/99-1, dated 26.11.1999 and of the third respondent herein in his proceedings in Permanent B.P.(Ch.) No. 122, dated 24.3.1999 by which the 1st respondents order was confirmed.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he was working as a Senior Draftsman, Ennore Thermal Power Station and now he reached superannuation. The petitioner stated that while he was working at Salem General Construction Circle under the first respondent, he obtained loan for construction of a building. The petitioner submitted that the said loan was also sanctioned by mortgaging the property with the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. It is submitted by the petitioner that during the course of registration of the mortgage before the Sub-Registrar at Sub-Registrar's Office, Villupuram, on instructions of the Sub-Registrar, certain corrections were made by the petitioner in the presence of the Sub-Registrar. Thereafter, the said conduct of the petitioner making corrections in the said document brought to the notice of the first respondent which resulted in initiating disciplinary proceedings and ultimately after enquiry, the enquiry officer recommending for the punishment of demotion of the petitioner for a period of two years from the post. The petitioner submitted his explanation and in view of the same, the proposed punishment was modified to the effect that of the increment of the petitioner to be stopped for a period of two years with cumulative effect. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing an appeal before the second respondent herein. But the second respondent has not passed any order on such appeal, for a long time and as a result, the petitioner has been constrained to issue a legal notice to the second respondent on 15.11.1999 and thereafter, received a reply from the second respondent dated 26.11.1999 informing that the appeal preferred by the petitioner was already rejected by the second respondent. Being aggrieved against such order, the present writ petition is filed.

(3.) 1. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the charges levelled against the petitioner are baseless. It is contended that the petitioner has not committed any serious offence and he has only carried out certain corrections as per the instructions of the Sub-Registrar. It is submitted that even the said corrections made by the petitioner were also brought to the notice of the first respondent. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further contend that even the first respondent sent a rectification deed, but the Sub-Registrar stated that the same is not required. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further contend that the second respondent, who is the appellate authority, without giving any personal hearing or any opportunity to put forth the contentions of the petitioner herein mechanically and arbitrarily passed the impugned order dated 06.11.1998 rejecting the appeal of the petitioner merely stating that the appeal is barred by limitation. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the order of the first respondent dated 01.06.1998 was received by the petitioner only on 11.06.1998 and thereafter, the appeal was preferred on 23.07.1998. It is submitted that the period of 30 days was fixed by the first respondent for preferring the appeal in the impugned order dated 01.06.1998. It is contended that even assuming if there is any delay, it is only few days and for such lapse on the part of the petitioner, his appeal itself ought not to have been rejected and on the other hand, the appellate authority could have given opportunity to the petitioner to file a petition to condone such delay.