V. Bhavani Subbaroyan, J. - (1.)This Writ Petition has been filed to call for the records connected with Proceeding No.44670/Estt(DP)/A2/2001-69 dated 27.03.2008 passed by the first respondent and the consequential proceedings of the second respondent in Proc.No.F.Condtl/1000/EA/2008/Maint/TVM/ dated 31.03.2008 placing the petitioner under continue suspension until further orders by retaining the petitioner in service under FR 56(1) Read with Regulation 58 of the TWAD Board Service Regulation 1972 till the enquiry into the charges are concluded and to quash the same and further to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to retire and disburse all the retiremental benefits to the petitioner at the earliest point of time.
(2.)The case of the petitioner is that he has been charged by the first respondent with a charge Memo No.44670/Estt/(DPI)/A2/2001-5 dated 08.02.2002 alleging that he has acquired immovable properties during the period of his service as Work Inspector between 01.01.1983 and 31.12.1996 without prior permission from the competent authority and thereby, violated regulation 14(1) of the TWAD Board Officers and Servants conduct Regulations 1972. Due to the said charge, the petitioner has accumulated Rs.3,89,599/- to his known source of Income.
(3.)The petitioner had contended that he joined in the service of the respondent board on 04.12.1974 as Work Inspector Grade I, included in the TWAD Board General Sub-ordinate service. The petitioner job was not a managerial or administrative work and which comes under the definition of workman as per the Section 2(1) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 read with Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, the petitioner would submit that if at all any charge to be framed against him for any misconduct or misbehaviour prescribed in standing Order 32 of TWAD Board Standing Orders for Workmen, 1998, it has to be framed and only proceeded with under Standing Order 34 of TWAD Board Standing Orders for Workmen, 1998, certified by the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Chennai on 26.03.1998. But, unfortunately, the petitioner was charged under the Regulation Nos.14(1) and 9(b) of the TWAD Board Officers and Servants conduct Regulation, 1972, by the respondent. Hence, the petitioner would contend that the said charges are illegal.