@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
V. Kanagaraj, J.@mdashWrit petition praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in TNEB circular in memo a)
42467-PI/95-1 dated 01.07.1997 issued by the third respondent and b) memo No. 117/Ni.Pi.5/U.1/Oo.Na.62/2001 dated 24.05.2002 on the
file of the first respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with backwages.
2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner would submit that originally he was a contract worker and was absorbed in the
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board by the first respondent pursuant to the recommendation of Justice Khalid Committee Report; that he was working as
Helper and the Educational Qualification was ''Nil'' for the contract workers at the time of absorption; that as many as 21 workmen, on ill advice,
submitted their School Certificates on the same day and it was the subject matter of the disciplinary proceedings; that they participated in the
enquiry, submitting their explanations even at the time of absorption; that on enquiry being conducted, the first respondent caused the second show
cause notice dated 05.10.2001 directing the workmen to submit their explanations within a week as to why they should not be dismissed from
service; that their representations dated 12.11.2001 seeking three weeks'' further time to submit detailed explanations were not considered nor had
they been rejected, but construing the representation dated 12.11.2001 itself as explanation to the second show cause notice, the first respondent
passed the order of dismissal dated 15.11.2001 which is bad in law and is violative of the principles of natural justice; that he challenged the said
order dated 15.11.2001 in W.P. No. 4772 of 2002 and the same was allowed on the ground that substantial opportunity was not given to the
petitioner and hence violative of principles of natural justice.
3. The further case of the petitioner is that thereafter he submitted a representation dated 06.05.2002 to the first respondent explaining that the
extreme penalty of dismissal is unwarranted; that though, for similarly placed persons, a lesser punishment of reduction in rank was inflicted, the
first respondent, unmindful of the grounds urged, passed a mechanical order of dismissal in the impugned order relying on the circular dated
1.07.1997 which is advocating compulsory punishment of dismissal through the original authority; that even though the circular is not applicable to
the contract workers employed pursuant to the report of Justice Khalid Commission, the original authority''s refusal to exercise his benevolence for
lesser punishment is unjustified ; that the circular perse was not applicable to him; that the disciplinary proceeding was an empty formality, since
decision had already been arrived at. On such grounds, the petitioner would come forward to file the above writ petition seeking the reliefs
extracted supra.
4. During arguments, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, besides relying on the facts and circumstances of the case in the writ
petition, would also cite two judgments, both of the Hon''ble Apex Court, the first one delivered in Commissioner of Police, Bombay Vs.
Gordhandas Bhanji, and the second one delivered in Anirudhsinhji Jadeja and another Vs. State of Gujarat, .
5. So far as the first judgment cited above is concerned, the Hon''ble Apex Court while dealing with a case u/s 45 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877
analysing the scope of an order against person holding public office held therein:
Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer
making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to
have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with
reference to the language used in the order itself.
6. In the second judgment cited above, the Hon''ble Apex court while dealing with a Criminal Appeal under ''Terrorists and Disruptive Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1987'' particularly dealing with the aspect of the recording of information about the offence under the said Act and the grant of
approval by the authority, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, and when the said authority, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, instead of giving
approval on his own sought permission of the Additional Chief Secretary in order to proceed under TADA Act, The Honourable Apex Court held
this act of the authority designated by law as a case of `exercise of power on basis of external dictation'' and hence found lack of application of
mind, leading to quash the proceedings.
7. On the part of the respondents, though no counter has been filed, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the TNEB would take notice and
argue on instructions. Besides the learned counsel for the respondents stoutly denying the allegations of the writ petition, he would exhort that the
proposition held in the above two judgments cited on the part of the petitioner are entirely different from the situation that is prevalent in the case in
hand. The learned counsel would also point out that the facts and circumstances of the cases in the judgments of the Hon''ble Apex Court and the
law applied are entirely different and there is absolutely no nexus to the case in hand. The learned counsel would further point out that the first
judgment cited above is specifically dealing with Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 and the second judgment has been decided on a
criminal case, dealing with the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act and the case in hand being a service matter, the legal norms and
procedures adopted are entirely different, which cannot be equated so as to apply, those norms held by the Hon''ble Apex Court to meet with
different situations.
8. The learned counsel would also establish that there is alternative appeal remedy available for the petitioner before the Chief Engineer
Distribution, Vellore.
9. In consideration of the facts pleaded by the petitioner, having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing learned counsel for
both, what could be gathered is that the petitioner, in filing the above writ petition, has sought for not only the circular dated 01.07.1997 issued by
the third respondent, the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board but also the memo dated 24.05.2002 issued by the first respondent, the
Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to be quashed as illegal and further sought for the direction to the respondents to reinstate
him into service with backwages.
10. The circular issued by the third respondent Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai dated 01.07.1997 is in the form of instructions
issued pertaining to the initiation of departmental proceedings in the matters of furnishing false information on the part of the employees adopting the
instructions issued by the Government, which is emphatical that if the Government servant, who has secured employment during initial recruitment
in service, furnish false information or produce a false certificate, he should not be retained in service. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board adopting
the said instructions of the Government, has issued similar instructions in the above circular in respect of the Board''s employees, the operative
portion of which is as under:-
In view of the rules position set out above, it is hereby ordered that an employee of this Board who was not qualified or eligible in terms of
recruitment rules for the initial recruitment in service but has secured employment by furnishing false information or producing a false certificate in
order to secure appointment or at any other during his service, should not be retained in service, if he is an approved probationer or a permanent
employee disciplinary action shall be taken following the procedures prescribed under Discipline & Appeal Regulations or respective Standing
Orders. If the charge is proved, the employee shall be removed or dismissed from service. Besides, such discharge termination, removal or
dismissal from service, he shall also be liable for prosecution.
11. So far as the second memo. said to have been issued by the first respondent dated 24.05.2002 is concerned, it is nothing but the dismissal
order passed by the authority, thereby dismissing the petitioner from the service of the Board by the said authority.
12. Needless to mention that the first circular issued by the third respondent, the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board is testified pertaining to
its legality and application in general to the employers of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and the second memo. is based on the facts and
circumstances of the case particularly based on a domestic enquiry conducted on specific charges framed against the petitioner, against which the
petitioner has got an appeal remedy before the Chief Engineer Distribution, Vellore.
13. So far as the circular issued by the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board in the above proceedings cited dated 01.07.1997 is concerned,
the objectionable portion of the same as per the petitioner is that but for the circular even in the event, the authorities arrive at the conclusion to
hold the delinquent guilty of such charges framed, as it is in the present case, extreme penalty of dismissal from service should not be contemplated
and finally by this circular which has been adopted from the proceedings of the Government pertaining to their service, institution of departmental
proceedings and infliction of punishment that the Board has arrived at to award the extreme penalty of dismissal, termination, removal and
discharge from service are resorted to file and hence the said circular is not applicable to the contract workers employed pursuant to the report of
Justice Khalid Commission.
14. The petitioner''s argument is that the original authority refused to exercise its benevolent jurisdiction for lesser punishment to be awarded on the
petitioner as it had done in the cases of similarly placed employees and passed the extreme punishment of dismissal in the case of petitioner; that
since the said authority is bound by the circular dated 01.07.1997, calling the same unjust and illegal the petitioner has sought for quashing the
same. It is the further case of the petitioner that the circular has to be declared void and inapplicable to the case of the persons who were absorbed
pursuant to the recommendation of the Justice Khalid Commission Report.
15. Though the petitioner takes up the plea that the circular dated 01.07.1997 issued by the third respondent chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity
Board, is inapplicable to persons absorbed pursuant to the recommendation of the Justice Khalid Commission Report, no proper or tangible
reasons have been assigned on the part of the petitioner as to how persons, absorbed pursuant to the recommendation of Justice Khalid
Commission Report, deserve exemption from the circular dated 01.07.1997 or do not come under the fold of application of the circular and the
mere pleading to the effect that the first respondent should not have applied the circular in his case, cannot help the petitioner in any manner, since
the petitioner is not able to establish that the circular warranting extreme punishment of dismissal in cases of such nature is either illegal or unlawful
or that it is violative of the Constitutional provisions or any other law for the time being in force. Therefore, there is no question of quashing the
same just for the simple reason that the said circular works hardships or inconvenience to the petitioner in the matter of the disciplinary proceedings
initiated against him, which ended in finding him guilty of the charges framed on facts, which this Court of judicial review is not supposed to go into,
unless the same falls under the norms of law for a judicial review of the dismissal order cited in the first respondent''s memo dated 24.05.2002.
16. So far as the judgments cited on the part of the petitioner are concerned, since the situations under which such conclusions are arrived at by the
Hon''ble Apex Court in both the said cases are entirely different from that of the case in hand, this Court is unable to adopt the same so as to apply
the said norms to the facts of the present case.
17. Since there are no strong legal grounds either in existence or brought forth on the part of the petitioner to quash both the circular and the
memo., which are sought to be quashed by him, this Court is not inclined to cause interference into the circular issued by the third respondent
Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board dated 01.07.1997 and the memo. of dismissal passed by the first respondent Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Dharmapuri dated 24.05.2002 and hence the following order:
In result,
(i) the above writ petition fails and the same is dismissed;
(ii) However, since the petitioner is at liberty to question the validity of the order of dismissal passed in Memo No. Ku. No.
117/Ni.Pi5/U.1/Oo.Na.62/2001 dated 24.05.2002 by the first respondent Superintending Engineer, Dharmapuri before the appropriate appellate
authority i.e. the Chief Engineer Distribution, Vellore on facts and circumstances and in accordance with law pertaining to the subject, he can prefer
an appeal before the said authority within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
(iii) No costs.
Consequently, W.P.M.P. Nos.33622 to 33624 of 2002 are also dismissed.
