- (1.) The petitioner in W.P.No.27892 of 2013 S.Ravichandran, Assistant Executive Engineer, the petitioner in W.P.No.27893 of 2013 R.Ramachandran, Assistant Engineer, the petitioner in W.P.No. 27894 of 2013 R.Balasubrahmanian, Assistant Executive Engineer, the petitioner in W.P.No.27895 of 2013 A.Nachan, Assistant Executive Engineer and the petitioner in W.P.No.27896 of 2013 N.Murugavel, Assistant Executive Engineer, who are working in Corporation of Chennai, have filed these writ petitions to quash the charge memos dated 21.12.2012 issued to them.
(2.) The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present writ petitions, are as follows:- (a) While the petitioners were working as Assistant Executive Engineer / Assistant Engineer in the Corporation of Chennai, during the year 1998, tender was invited by the first respondent for construction of school buildings in different divisions of the corporation and the estimate was prepared by the Superintending Engineer, Buildings Department. After following the due process, the work was allotted to the registered contractors for execution of the construction work. The work was completed in time and there was no allegation either from the general public or from any other authority concerned like audit department, etc. The buildings are in good and sound condition and under usage as on date. The petitioners acted as per the estimation of the work and tender conditions. They verified with the materials used in the buildings and thereafter, made an entry in the 'M' book without any dereliction. (b) While such being the position, suddenly in the year 2002, it was alleged that the Grill and RTS rods used in the buildings are not in accordance with the estimation. Based on the said allegation, the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department took a task and started investigation in respect of the school buildings alone and after a detailed investigation, they found that there was no irregularity or illegality in the construction work. Hence, they started investigation in respect of the other buildings, wherein also, they found that there was no irregularity. The have also found that there was no sufficient material to prove the allegations and as such, they dropped action and informed the same to the first respondent. But, the first respondent was not satisfied with the report of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption and issued charge memos against the petitioners on 18.7.2007 under Rule 10(b) of the Madras Corporation Services (CCA) Rules, 1970 for other than the school buildings. After the receipt of the charge memos, the petitioners submitted their explanation. Not being satisfied with the said explanation, the first respondent appointed an Enquiry Officer and after full-fledged enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted the non proven minute and in consultation with the Government, the first respondent dropped the charges on 19.8.2010. (c) Though the first respondent has dropped the charges in respect of the buildings other than school buildings, now the present charge memos dated 21.12.2012 were issued in respect of the construction of the school buildings alone. The present charge memos were issued by the first respondent with vague charges, only in order to defeat the petitioners' legitimate promotion. In the present charge memos, it has been stated that the petitioners have boosted the measurements in 'M' book. The said allegation is highly presumptive and improbable and without any basis. Hence, the petitioners have come up with the present writ petitions challenging the charge memos dated 21.12.2012.
(3.) The respondents have filed a common counter affidavit inter alia stating that charge memos were issued to the petitioners vide G.D.C.No.E1/26750/2012 dated 21.12.2012, for the irregularities noticed in the construction of school buildings, which were constructed before the year 2000. The Government vide G.O (D) No.3, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (ME-4) Department, dated 2.1.2008 had recommended departmental enquiry as against the 17 Engineers in various capacities on the allegations that there are certain irregularities in the construction of the school buildings prior to the year 2000. The said Government Order was received in the office of the Corporation of Chennai only on 28.6.2012. Thereupon charges were framed under major penalty section as against all the delinquents mentioned the said G.O. Hence, there was a delay in initiating the disciplinary action. Charge memos were issued to the petitioners on 29.12.2012 and explanations were received from them. One R.Kumaresan, the then Chief Engineer (General) was appointed as the Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioners. However, the said Enquiry Officer retired from service on 31.5.2013 without conducting the enquiry. Now, one T.Anand, I.A.S., Deputy Commissioner (Health) has been appointed as the Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry in this case. The charge memos are specific in nature as it is clearly stated that there is a boosted measurement with respect to M.S.Grill, M.S.Steel Door and M.S.Grill Gate weights. Thus, they pray for the dismissal of the writ petitions.;