RAJENDRAN T Vs. CHIEF ENGINEER DISTRIBUTION MADRAS REGIONAL AND SPECIAL OFFICER FOR DISTRIBUTION TNEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An unsuccessful petitioner challenges the dismissal of his writ petition wherein he had challenged the disciplinary proceeding and the resultant punishment of dismissal. Few facts would be necessary.

(2.) In the year 1986, the petitioner was working as an Assistant Engineer in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (in short, the Board) at Perumbakkam, Chengalpattu Division. He, vide application, dated June 5, 1986, applied leave for one day, i.e., on June 6, 1986. The leave was granted. However, the petitioner did not report to duty on June 7, 1986. His explanation was called by memo, dated June 14, 1986, as he was found to be continuously absent. The memo, was received and acknowledged by one P. Jayashree for T. Rajendran (petitioner) on June 18, 1986. The petitioner sent an application on July 13, 1986 for unearned leave from July 13, 1986 to October 10, 1986. This leave was refused by memo, dated August 11, 1986, and the Petitioner was directed to join duty. However, the said memo was returned by the postal authority that the petitioner was reported to be out of India. The matters then stood still till December 4, 1986 when the petitioner allegedly turned up for joining the duty but, he was not allowed to join the duty probably on account of his continued absence for six months. A charge sheet came to be served on the petitioner on October 25, 1988 wherein four charges were framed. It was alleged that from June 7, 1986 he had not turned for duty. There were other three charges regarding his habit of leaving the headquarters without prior permission, giving false residential address and for negligence of duty. He was asked to submit his explanation. However this charge-memo was cancelled by the Board. The petitioner was given another charge- memo on December 12, 1988. There also the charge was for unauthorised absence from duty from June 7, 1986 for which, the petitioner sent his explanation. However, by the memo, dated April 10, 1989, the petitioner was placed under suspension and the petitioner was informed by the memo, dated May 20, 1989, that the earlier charge-memo, dated December 17, 1988, and the enquiry proceedings thereto stood cancelled. It was, however, stated therein that this cancellation was without prejudice to the de novo action which was proposed against the petitioner. Ultimately, a fresh charge sheet came to be issued against the petitioner on May 20, 1989 whereby the petitioner was informed that he had unauthorisedly absented himself from duty from June 7, 1986 to April 9, 1989.

(3.) The petitioner gave the explanation to this and claimed that he had applied for the earned leave for thirty days period from 7. 1986 and had further extended his leave up to December 4, 1986 and on December 4, 1986 when he was not allowed to join the same. He claimed before the authorities that he made several representations but he was suspended from service on April 1, 1989. He also refuted that he was not in India. The petitioner was found guilty and it was held that his explanation was not convincing and not satisfactory at all. He was removed from service by the order, dated January 4, 1990. An appeal came to be filed by the petitioner before the first respondent but the said appeal also came to be dismissed by the order of the first respondent, dated December 31, 1990. Hence the petitioner filed the writ petition before the learned Single judge who dismissed the said petition by his judgment, dated February 15, 2000. It seems that an application was made for speaking to the minutes. Even that application was dismissed by the learned single Judge by his order, dated February 22, 2000. The dismissal of his petition is now challenged in the appeal before us.