D. Murugan, v. The Chairman,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRAS
DATED: 30.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. GOVINDARAJ W.P.No.34689 of 2005 (Through Video Conference) D.Murugan
...Petitioner
Vs
1) The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 800, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002
2) The Chief Engineer (Distribution), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Vellore Region, Vellore - 6, Vellore District.
3) The Superintending Engineer, Dharmapuri Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Dharmapuri-5, Dharmapuri District.
...Respondents
PRAYER:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the Second Respondent in Ku.Aa.No.020589/Nir.A/A.2/2002 dated 17.10.2002 confirming the order of removal from service issued by the third respondent in Ku.No.3530/Ni/ Pi.5/U.1/Ko.O.Na.69/2002 dated 15.06.2002 and quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all attendant benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Rajendran For RR 1 to 3 : Mr.P.Subramanian Senior Counsel (TNEB)
O R D E R
The writ petitioner is functioning as an Asssessor at the office of the Assistant Engineer (Operation & Maintainance), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board in Rayakottai Division, Dharmapuri under the respondents. It appears that the Assessor of Rayakottai, Central Zone went on leave for a period of two
months (i.e.) from February 1999 to April 1999. Therefore, he was given an additional charge of recording meter readings in that area also.
2. During the course of his work, he visited one premises on February 1999 and April 1999 for recording the bimonthly meter readings. The meter reading was recorded as 000200 for both the periods. The meter was not found functioning. Therefore, a charge memo was issued to the petitioner on 07/03/2021 for the misconduct of not informing the non-functioning of the meter and for derelictiom of duty. An enquiry was conducted and the charges were held proved. The Disciplinary Authority issued a notice on 28/03/2002 enclosing the enquiry report with the proposed punishment to be imposed on the delinquent. Ultimately, the petitioner was dismissed from service and he had preferred an Appeal. The Appeal was also rejected on 17/10/2002 against which, the petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition.
3. Heard the rival submissions.
4. From the reading of the appeal grounds, it is noted that the petitioner was given additional charge in the leave vacancy. The regular assessor posted for the Rayakottai Central Zone was one Mr.Thillai C Bharathi. He was functioning from 1997-1999. In the said service connection no.381, meter reading was recorded as 000200 for the entire two years period. Previously, the petitioner has recorded the meter readings on 2/99 and 4/99 (i.e.) during the months of February and April 1999. The charge memo was framed against the petitioner for recording the very same meter reading and not informing the superior of the non-functioning of the meter. Previously, the regular Assessor, who was posted to the Distribution Circle, has recorded the very same meter reading for two years, and he was not at all found fault with. Later it was informed that the charge memo was issued to him also and a punishment of stoppage of increment was imposed on him, whereas, punishment of removal from service was imposed on the petitioner for doing the work for two months.
5. In fact, it is well known that the regular Assessor, who was taking the meter reading regularly and who is responsible for the same, shall report the non-functioning of the meter to his Superior Authority. It is stated that from the year 1997, the meter was not functioning. There is no explanation as to why no action was taken by the respondents for a period of two years. Suddenly, when the petitioner was given additional charge of that area, this matter was taken up and charges were framed against the petitioner. In fact when the Assessors do not discharge their duties properly, the respondents are entitled to initiate action. It cannot be questioned or doubted but while imposing punishment, the punishment for the same delinquency for
the same incident should be equal to the similarly placed persons or proportionate to the delinquency committed by them. In the case of regular Assessor, he was left of with minor punishment of 'stoppage of increment' whereas, the person, who was deputed during leave vacancy was imposed with 'removal from service'. Such treatment is violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.
6. Secondly, a specific ground was raised that the so-called defective meter was sent for lab analysis, whereas, it was found that there is no fault in the functioning of the meter. The inference was that the Company was closed and there was no consumption and that is why the meter was not running. Apart from this, the very same respondents refunded the penalty collected from the consumer, pursuant to the cancellation of the penalty order. In that event, it should be inferred that there is no fault on the part of the delinquent and there is no loss caused to the Government.
7. Even though a specific ground was raised, the Appellate Authority has not at all discussed the issue and arrived at a finding that no new grounds were raised. Such an order shows the non-application of mind of the Appellate Authority. The impugned order of removal from service, is thereby vitiated for nonapplication of mind.
8. Apart from the above, on a perusal of the notice issued by the Disciplinary Authority dated 28/03/2002, it is noted that even before calling for objections over the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority has pre-determined the issue. It is recorded that, considering the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the past service and antecedents of the petitioner, it is proposed to dismiss the petitioner from service. Such a procedure, even before calling for objection over the enquiry report, is illegal and unsustainable and opposed to the principles of natural justice.
9.The show cause notice is issued with a predetermined view, without getting objections over the enquiry report. Therefore, it is seen that the respondents have approached the issue with a predetermined and vindictive view to punish the petitioner. Such type of orders are arbitrary, illegal and amounts to misuse of powers. Considering the fact that the lab report declared the meter was functioning properly and the money was refunded to the consumer by canceling the order of penalty imposed by the Competent Authority, the charge imposed on the petitioner cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the punishment imposed by the respondents also cannot be sustained.
10. In the result, the impugned order in Ku.No.3530/Ni/ Pi.5/U.1/Ko.O.Na.69/2002 dated 15/06/2002 passed by the third Respondent and the order of the Appellate Authority is proceedings in Ku.Aa.No.020589/Nir.A/A.2/2002 dated 17/10/2002 confirming the order of the Disciplinary Authority is set aside.
11. In fine, the Writ Petition stands Allowed and a direction is issued to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service with immediate effect and the petitioner is entitled to all the monetary, attendant benefits till the date of his reinstatement. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar sts To:
1) The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 800, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002
2) The Chief Engineer (Distribution), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Vellore Region, Vellore - 6, Vellore District.
3) The Superintending Engineer, Dharmapuri Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Dharmapuri-5, Dharmapuri District.
+1CC to M/s.P.Rajendran, Advocate, Sr.No.37251 +1CC to Mr.P.Subramaniam, Advocate, Sr.No.37306 W.P.No.34689 of 2005 SMI (CO) K.RK. (17.09.2021)