CH MURALI Vs. CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner joined the service of erstwhile A.P. Electricity Board, as Wireman in the year 1969. Over the period, the transmission activity in the Board came to be entrusted to the Transmission Corporation of A.P. i.e., 1st respondent herein. Thereafter, the petitioner earned number of promotions and by the year 1993, he was working as Assistant Divisional Engineer. A charge memo was issued on 05.07.1996 with three charges alleging that the petitioner was responsible for the loss of huge quantities of copper and aluminium; that he indulged in the acts of subversion and manipulation of the records and that he violated the Regulations and thereby cheated the Corporation. The petitioner submitted explanation on 2.08.1996. Not satisfied with that, the respondents directed enquiry into the matter. The enquiry officer submitted his report holding that charge No. 1 is proved and charge Nos.2 and 3 are not proved. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice thereafter. The Member Secretary of the 1st respondent-Corporation passed an order dated 09.12.1998 imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement against the petitioner and directing recovery of a sum of Rs. 8,38,715/- towards shortage of copper and aluminium scrap. The petitioner challenges the said order. The petitioner contends that the very initiation of proceedings was mala fide, inasmuch as he alone was chosen to be proceeded, though the Chief Engineer of the concerned wing clearly observed that there is involvement of the Divisional Engineer, Assistant Accounts Officer, Assistant Divisional Engineer and Senior Accounts Officer. He submits that the calculation as to the quantities of copper etc. are totally imaginary and the fact that an Assistant Divisional Engineer is not alone to deal with the matter pertaining to gathering of scrap, burning of it and forwarding it to contractors, was not at all taken into account. Other allegations are made as to the irregularities in the enquiry.

(2.) On behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit is filed, denying the allegations. According to it, the liability of the petitioner was fixed after thorough enquiry and no procedural irregularities have taken place.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the enquiry initiated against the petitioner is vitiated from the inception. He contends that despite the observation of higher officials that the matter pertaining to burning of scrap of copper and aluminium involves the Divisional Engineer, Assistant Accounts Officer, Assistant Divisional Engineer and Senior Accounts Officer, the petitioner alone was chosen. He submits that the lack of transparency in the proceedings is evident from the fact that the official, who worked as Divisional Engineer, at the relevant point of time and later became Superintendent Engineer, was appointed as Enquiry Officer and when an objection was raised by the petitioner, a lame excuse was pleaded. He submits that the quantities were also taken on pure imagination and it was not a case where the petitioner was entrusted with a particular quantity of scrap and after burning it, he did not account for the standardized quantity.