V.K.Sathyanarayanan v. The Chairman,Tamil Nadu Electricity Board

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE: 22-09-2008CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDRENWrit Petition No.2031 of 2001V.K.Sathyanarayanan.. Petitioner.Versus1.The Chairman,Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.2.The Chief Engineer (Personnel)Tamil Nadu Electricity Baord,Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.3.The Chief Engineer (Distribution)Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,Vellore-632 006... Respondents. Prayer: This petition has been filed seeking for a writ ofCertiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the firstrespondent relating to the Proeedings in PERMANENT/BP/(CH)214, dated2.11.2000, confirming the order of the third respondent in his memoNo.014727/ADM/A2/99-4, dated 28.4.2000 and quash both the orders andconsequently direct the respondents to refund the amount ofRs.37,547/-, recovered from the petitioner together with interest andcost to the petitioner herein. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Krishna AnanthFor Respondents : Mr.B.Sekar (R1 to R3)O R D E RHeard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and thelearned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner had joined therespondent Board during the year 1962, and he had retired as anAssistant Executive Engineer, on 29.2.2000. The petitioner had beenserved with a charge memo, calling upon him to give his explanation https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ with regard to the alleged failure of a capacitor Unit and theconsequent fire accident that had taken place, on 18.12.97. Thepetitioner had submitted his explanation stating that he had acted inaccordance with the regulations of the Board and that he was notresponsible in any manner for the failure of the capacitor Unit. Thethird respondent, not having been satisfied with the explanationsubmitted by the petitioner, had issued the proceedings, dated15.6.99, proposing to hold an enquiry against the petitioner, underRegulation 18(b) of the Tamilnadu Electricity Board Employees(Discipline and Appeal) Regulations. The only charge against thepetitioner was that he had not properly supervised the works carriedout by the junior engineer of the Sub station at Vinnamangalam andthat he had not arranged for proper testing and commissioning of thecapacitor Unit M.R.T and that the accident had occurred due to hisnegligence and thus, he had committed an act amounting to misconduct. 3. It has been further stated that an enquiry had been conductedon 17.11.99, by the Executive Engineer, Thiruppathur and the enquiryofficer had held that the charge against the petitioner was provedand that the petitioner was guilty of the alleged misconduct.Admittedly, no witness was examined, either on the side of themanagement, or on behalf of the petitioner. No material evidence waspresented during the course of the enquiry. The enquiry officer hadrelied on extraneous materials to come to the conclusion that thepetitioner was guilty of the misconduct alleged against him. Theenquiry officer had failed to note that the capacitor unit was withinthe guarantee period and at any rate the petitioner could not be heldresponsible for its sudden failure. During the enquiry, the enquiryofficer himself had conducted the cross examination, even though themanagement representative was present during the enquiry. It has beenfurther stated that the petitioner had submitted an explanation tothe enquiry officer's findings, on 25.8.99, stating that theconclusions arrived at by the enquiry officer was without any basisand that there was no material evidence to prove the charge framedagainst the petitioner. There was no negligence on the part of thepetitioner as he had performed his duties as per the proceduresestablished under the regulations and as per the service rules andthat the accident which had taken place, on 18.12.1997, cannot beattributed to the petitioner. The petitioner had further stated thatthe accident that had occurred due to the failure of the capacitorunit did not come under the ambit of the responsibility of thepetitioner. 4. It has also been stated that the petitioner has sent adetailed representation to the third respondent, on 8.3.2000.However, the third respondent, without considering the representationsubmitted by the petitioner and without going into the facts andcircumstances of the case, had passed the impugned order, dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

28.4.2000, holding the petitioner responsible for the lapses andfixing the liability on the petitioner for the losses of the Board'sproperty at Rs.1,25,156/- and the petitioner was liable for 30% ofthe said amount, which is Rs.37,547/-. The said amount was directedto be recovered from the petitioner in one lumpsum from the death cumretirement gratuity payable to him, since he had retired from serviceon 29.2.2000. The petitioner had preferred an appeal before the firstrespondent on 16.6.2000, stating that he was not liable for thefailure of the capacitor unit and that he was not responsible for thefire accident that had taken place, on 18.12.97. However, the firstrespondent had rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner by anorder, dated 2.11.2000. The appellate authority had passed the orderwithout considering the points raised by the petitioner and withoutconsidering the facts and circumstances of the case. In suchcircumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writpetition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents ithas been stated that the petitioner who was working as an AssistantExecutive Engineer/Electrical at Vinnamangalam had retired from theBoard's service, on 29.2.2000. The petitioner was working as anAssistant Executive Engineer at Vinnamangalam Operation andMaintenance, Sub Division in the year 1997, on 18.12.1997, during atotal shut down. A failed capacitor Unit was replaced with a new oneby Jayaseelan, Junior Engineer of the sub station and it wassupervised by the petitioner. The new capacitor unit was not testedby M.R.T., before its commissioning. After the new capacitor had beeninstalled, the supply was normal by charging LV Breaker at 19.15hours. The newly non-tested capacitor unit which had been erected hadexploded and oil from the reactor had spurted causing a major fireaccident, resulting in heavy losses to the Board's property. Theentire capacitor and the reactor had got burnt out in the fireaccident. Thus, it was clear that the petitioner had failed toexercise proper supervision over the works carried by the juniorengineer sub station, Vinnamangalam. The petitioner had not arrangedfor the proper testing and commissioning of the capacitor unit byM.R.T. Due to the failure on the part of the petitioner there was ahuge loss to the Board's property to the value of Rs.2,38,639/-.Therefore, the charges were framed against the petitioner by thethird respondent, under Regulation 8(b) of the Tamilnadu ElectricityBoard, (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, by a memo, dated 15.6.99.Charges had also been framed against E.Jayaseelan, Junior EngineerGrade-I, sub station, Vinnamangalam and S.Munirathinam, JuniorEngineer Grade-II, for their negligence. The enquiry officer hadconducted the enquiry on the charges framed against him in a fair andproper manner, giving all reasonable opportunity to him to put forthhis case. The enquiry officer after conducting the enquiry had cometo the conclusion that the charges had been proved. Further, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ statement of the petitioner that the capacitor unit was within theguarantee period and at any rate its sudden failure cannot beattributed to the petitioner, cannot be accepted since the fireaccident that had occurred had caused a loss of an estimated value ofRs.2,38,639/- since the explanations submitted by the petitioner werenot satisfactory, the petitioner was imposed with the punishment ofrecovery of the amount of Rs.37,547/- by the order issued by thethird respondent. The first respondent appellate authority haddismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner, confirming the orderpassed by the third respondent.6. The main contention raised by the learned counsel appearing onbehalf of the petitioner is that the enquiry officer, had conductedthe enquiry, contrary to the principles of natural justice. He hadposed leading questions to the petitioner during the enquiry which hewas not expected to do. Further, the decision to impose thepunishment of recovery of Rs.37547/-, on the petitioner, was takenafter subsequent discussions with the Superintending Engineer,Thirupathur, Electricity Distribution circle and the ExecutiveEngineer, M.R.T. Thiruppathur. However, no opportunity was given tothe petitioner at that stage for submitting his explanation. In factthe petitioner had not known the nature of the discussions held andtherefore, the decision of the third respondent to impose thepunishment on the petitioner is arbitrary, biased and contrary to theprinciples of natural justice.7. It has been further contended that the petitioner is notresponsible for the failure of the capacitor unit and its subsequentexplosion causing a fire accident, leading to the loss of property ofthe respondent Board. The failure of the capacitor unit is not due tothe failure of the petitioner to supervise his subordinate officer,but it is only due to certain technical defects which had occurred inthe capacitor unit. The capacitor Unit was tested by the M.R.T wingand therefore, the Unit had already been certified and there was noneed for testing the same at the site as per the Code of technicalinstructions. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner hadfailed to carry out the necessary tests before permitting theinstallation of the equipment. Further, during the enquiry it hasalso been admitted by the management representative that there wereno rules specifying that the equipment was to be installed only aftera test being carried out at the site. Once it has been stated thatthe fire accident had occurred due to the failure in the equipment,the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the loss that isalleged to have occurred due to such a failure of the equipment.There is no rule or regulation showing that the petitioner wasincharge of the equipment and that he was responsible for its failureor the loss that had occurred due to the consequent fire accident. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8. Though the learned counsel appearing on behalf of therespondent Electricity Board had stated that the enquiry conductedagainst the petitioner was fair and proper and that the punishmentimposed upon the petitioner is based on the report submitted by theenquiry officer, he has not been in a position to show that there arespecific rules applicable to the service of the petitioner permittingthe respondent Board to impose a punishment after the retirement ofan employee or an officer from its service. In spite of severalopportunities having been given to the learned counsel appearing onbehalf of the respondent Electricity Board, he has not been in aposition to show that the punishment imposed for the loss alleged tohave been caused due to the failure of the petitioner to supervisethe installation of the capacitor unit is in accordance with therules and the regulations applicable to the case. Even though it maybe permissible for the respondent Board to recover the monetary losscaused to the respondent Board by an employee or an officer, there isnothing on record to show that it could be imposed on them by way ofpunishment. 9. In such circumstances, the impugned orders of the thirdrespondent, dated 28.4.2000, in his memo No.014727/ADM/A.2/99-4, andthe proceedings of the first respondent, dated 02.11.2000 inPermanent B.P.(Ch.) No.214, are set aside. Since, the petitioner hasnot been in a position to show that the respondents had acted in amalafide manner in recovering the said amount, this Court does notfind it appropriate to order refund of the said amount with theinterest accrued thereon, as prayed for by the petitioner. Hence, therespondents are directed to refund the amount of Rs.37,547/-,recovered from the petitioner without interest. The said amount is tobe refunded to the petitioner, within a period of 12 weeks from thedate of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition isallowed. No costs. Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.Csh https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1.The Chairman,Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.2.The Chief Engineer (Personnel)Tamil Nadu Electricity Baord,Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.3.The Chief Engineer (Distribution)Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,Vellore-632 006.+ 1 CC To Mr.B.Sekar, Advocate SR NO.54266+ 1 CC To Mr.J.Saravana Vel, Advocate SR NO.53936Writ Petition No.2031 of 2001NSM {CO}TP/17.10.08