@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
A. Kulasekaran, J.@mdashThe Petitioners have filed these writ petitions for the writ of certiorari, calling for the records of the Respondent in connection with resolution No. 204 dated 29.01.1994 and quash the same.
2. The Petitioners in these writ petitions are employed as Shift Engineers in Erukur Modern Rice Mill owned by the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited. On 6.01.1993, during the first shift the Senior Manager (Engg.), Cuddalore made an inspection at about 7.50a.m and found the boiler was working with low pressure, no water was available in the boiler, metal meter started coming out through the bottom ash hold, the furnace door was open and the bottom row of the boiler tubes were found red hot.
3. The Respondent/management issued a charge memo on 27.02.1993 to the Petitioners, they in turn submitted explanation which was found unsatisfactory. An Enquiry Officer was appointed who has given a report stating that charges are proved. The Petitioners were served second show cause notice along with the report of the Enquiry Officer, calling for explanation. The Petitioners have submitted explanation which was not satisfactory, with the result the punishment of withholding the increments for a period of five years with cumulative effect in so far as the Petitioner in W.P. No. 19639 of 1994, and stopped the increment of three years with cumulative effect in respect of the Petitioner in W.P.20209 of 1994 were awarded.
4. Both writ Petitioners have preferred appeals to the first Respondent, but no order has been passed in the said appeals till date.
5. In the mean while, the Board has passed resolution stating that the punishment awarded to the Petitioners are not commensurate with the seriousness of the offence. The resolution was passed as mentioned below;
The Board, after a detailed examination of the incident, felt that the punishment awarded for the damage caused to the boiler at Modern Rice Mill, Erukur, Phase-1, is not commensurate with the seriousness of the offence. The Board, therefore, decided that the said case may be reopened and appropriate punishment awarded....
Both the writ petitions are filed to quash the said resolution No. 204 dated 29.01.1994.
6. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner advanced arguments that the impugned resolution is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. The Board has erred in law in violating Rule 13 in Chapter V of Service Regulations, wherein it is contemplated that no such review to the detriment of the employee can be done without giving him an opportunity particularly when the appeals filed by the Petitioners are pending before the first Respondent. It is also argued by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that if the impugned resolution is given effect, the Petitioners would be put to great hardship and irreparable loss.
7. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent/Corporation submitted that the punishment imposed by the Senior Regional Manager is not commensurate to the severe charges; that the Board has passed the resolution to re-open the case based on the appeal preferred by the Petitioners. Immediately, the Petitioners have rushed to this Court before the appellate authority could pass orders on the appeal preferred by them or issuing show cause notice based on the resolution, hence the writ petitions are pre-mature and prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions.
Now, we look into Regulation 13 in Chapter V of the Tamil Nadu Employees Service Regulations, 1989:
13. Not withstanding anything contained in these regulations, the Board may review its own orders or any other orders of the officers of the Corporation provided no such review shall be detrimental to the interests of the employee without giving him an opportunity to show cause against such action.
8. Under Regulation 13, Chapter V, the Board may review its own orders or any other orders of the Officers of the corporation, provided no such review shall be detrimental to the interest of the employee without giving him an opportunity to show cause against such action. The reading of the impugned resolution shows that the Board felt that punishment is not commensurate with the seriousness of the Charges, therefore, they decided to reopen the case.
9. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Respondents that in and by the above said resolution, the Board has decided to re-open the matter, however, a show cause notice would be issued to the Petitioners before reviewing the punishment. I find some force in the argument of the learned Counsel for the Respondents. Certainly, the Board shall afford opportunity to the Petitioners before reviewing the punishment. The Petitioners have also failed to implead the Board as Respondent. The writ petitions are liable to be dismissed as it was pre-mature and also for non-joinder of necessary parties.
10. With the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.
