Madras High Court
P.Murugan vs The Chairman on 2 September, 2021
W.A.No.1473 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.09.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.A.No.1473 of 2021
P.Murugan .. Appellant
Vs.
1.The Chairman
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002
2.The Chief Engineer
Ennore Thermal Power Station
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Ennore, Chennai - 600 057
3.The Superintending Engineer
Purchase/Administration
Ennore Thermal Power Station
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Ennore, Chennai - 600 057
4.Stores Controller
Ennore Thermal Power Station
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Ennore, Chennai - 600 057
5.Stores Officer (Verification)
(office of the Chief Financial Controller
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai-2)
Now working at
Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle-West
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Ambattur, Chennai .. Respondents
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 1/11
W.A.No.1473 of 2021
***
Prayer : Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the
order dated 19.02.2021 made in W.P.No.5609 of 2007.
***
For Appellant : Ms.N.K.Kanthimathi
For Respondents : Mr.P.Subramanian
JUDGMENT
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
This intra-court appeal is directed against the order of the learned
single Judge dated 19.02.2021 made in W.P.No.5609 of 2007, by which
the learned single Judge declined the relief sought for by the appellant
herein/writ petitioner and dismissed the writ petition.
2. The appellant herein/writ petitioner was a Stores Supervisor with
the respondents/Electricity Board, who was subjected to disciplinary
action for missing of M.S.Scraps from the yard. After enquiry, a
punishment was imposed, against which, a writ petition was filed.
Disciplinary action was initiated against the appellant/writ petitioner for
shortage of M.S. Scraps to the tune of 25.607 MTs, based on which a
Memo was issued on 05.01.2004 calling for explanation. Thereafter, the
appellant was placed under suspension from 17.02.2004, which was later
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 2/11
W.A.No.1473 of 2021
revoked on 08.04.2004. Again, on 24.04.2004, charges were framed
against the appellant and after enquiry, it was found that the charges
were proved. On 24.08.2004, the appellant was issued with a show-
cause notice as to why punishment of stoppage of increments and also
recovery be made to compensate the loss up to 40% of the value of the
material amounting to Rs.1,07,053/-. Thereafter, on 07.01.2005, the
appellant was imposed with the punishment of stoppage of annual
increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect and recovery of
a sum of Rs.1,07,053/- was imposed.
3. Against the said order, the appellant has preferred a writ petition
in W.P. No.2743 of 2005. As the appellant had already filed an appeal
against the said order before the appellate authority, who is the second
respondent herein, this court had disposed of the writ petition, with a
direction to the second respondent herein to consider the appeal
independently. Accordingly, the second respondent, on 31.01.2007 had
passed an order dismissing the appeal and confirmed the findings of the
third respondent.
4. Aggrieved by the order of the second respondent dated
31.01.2007, the appellant herein/writ petitioner has filed one more writ
petition again in W.P. No.5609 of 2007. The learned single Judge, upon
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 3/11
W.A.No.1473 of 2021
hearing both the parties and after elaborate discussions, dismissed the
writ petition on 19.02.2021. The relevant portion of the said order is
extracted hereunder:
" 10. From the above, it could be seen that the allegations
which have been levelled against the petitioner have been
enquired by the Enquiry Officer and after affording reasonable
opportunity to the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer, after adhering
to the principles of natural justice issued second show cause
notice, which has been replied by the petitioner. Considering the
reply as well as materials available on record, impugned
punishment has been imposed, which has been confirmed in
Appeal. Therefore, from the initiation of Departmental
Proceedings till its culmination, there has been no procedural
irregularity.
11. It is well settled legal position that the power of judicial
review is not directed against the decision but is confined to the
decision making process. The Court does not sit in judgment on
merits of the decision. It is not open to the High Court to
re~appreciate and reappraise the evidence led before the Inquiry
Officer and examine the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer as
a Court of Appeal and reach its own conclusions.
12. In view of the above, the impugned order of
punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority/third respondent
dated 07.01.2005, and the order passed by the Appellate
Authority/second respondent, 31.01.2007, confirming the order
passed by the Disciplinary Authority, do not warrant any
interference by this Court.
13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition fails and the same is
dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. "
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 4/11
W.A.No.1473 of 2021
Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred this intra-court
appeal.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available in the form
of typed set of papers.
6. From the above facts, it is evident that the conventional grounds
of not affording a reasonable opportunity, not adhering to the principles
of natural justice etc. are not available to the appellant.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant, however, would
urge that, clauses 367 to 389 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Manual
Vol.1, (in short Manual), does not speak about sharing of responsibility
and loss with the Stores custodian. In other words, it was argued that
sharing of responsibility with the Stores custodian, M Section is not
contemplated in the above referred clauses and the appellant cannot be
held liable for the same. The learned counsel further pointed out that the
contractors to whom the supplies should have been made, have not
made any complaint about the non-availability of the scraps, as
quantified in the Sale order or the Release order, either to the Stores
Supervisor or to the Store custodian or even to the appellant.
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 5/11
W.A.No.1473 of 2021
8. Yet another point raised by the learned counsel was that equal
amount of shortage of M.S.Scraps was already retrieved from the same
yard, because of which the appellant cannot be attributed and punished
for recovery of the value of M.S. Scraps.
9. Clause 367 of the Manual deals with general administration of
Stores. Clause 369 reads as follows:
369. For this purpose, the Divisional Engineers are
generally held responsible for the stores situated in their area
and they are enjoined to acquaint themselves with the stores
on hand and their requirements. The Stores Superintendent or
Assistant Engineer/Stores is responsible to review the balanes
of all stores in the system every month and bring to notice of
the Divisional Engineers any stores falling short with a view to
ascertain their requirements. The Superintending Engineer
shall be posted with the information on the requirements of the
respectie divisions and the availability of stores and the action
taken for the balance every month by the Stores
Superintendent or Assistant Engineer, Stores. It should be
seen that no works are held up and supply delayed due to any
consumer for want of stores. This requires careful forecast on
the part of the Officer concerned.
10. A reading of the above clause, would go to show that the
Superintending Engineer, shall be posted with the information about the
availability of Stores and the action taken for the balance, every month
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 6/11
W.A.No.1473 of 2021
by the Stores Superintendent or the Assistant Engineer concerned. The
appellant, who is the Stores Supervisor, therefore, has a bounden duty to
update the Superintending Engineer about the balance stock, every
month. It is not the case of the appellant that he was updating
information to his higher officer.
11. Further, clauses 373 to 376 deals with custody of stores.
Clause 373, reads thus:
373. Large stores requiring whole-time work are
held in the custody of the Storekeepers appointed for the
purpose. In other cases, they are in the custody of the
Supervisors or Junior Engineers, as the case may be.
12. The above clause specifically fixes the responsibility of having
custody of the Stores with the Store Supervisor or Junior Engineer.
Therefore, the argument of the appellant that the Stores Supervisor
cannot be held liable for the loss caused, is unacceptable.
13. The first order passed by the third respondent dated
07.01.2005, has directed stoppage of annual increment for a period of
one year with cumulative effect inclusive of the period spent on leave and
40% of the value of the materials be recovered in 29 installments at the
rate of Rs.3,570/- per month and the 30th installment at the rate of
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 7/11
W.A.No.1473 of 2021
Rs.3,523/- (totaling to Rs.1,07,053/-) commencing the recovery from
January 2005 onwards.
14. On appeal by the appellant herein, the second respondent had
passed an order on 31.01.2007. In the above said order, considering the
fact that the appellant had reached the age of superannuation on
31.05.2007, ordered to recover the amount in four installments at the
rate of Rs.3,570/- per month commencing from February, 2007 and the
balance to be recovered from his DCRG to be paid on his superannuation
on 31.05.2007.
15. The learned counsel appearing for the Board, furnished a copy
of the proceedings dated 19.07.2005 in which, one R.Chinnadurai, Stores
Custodian I Grade, Ennore Thermal Power Station was placed under
suspension and after due enquiry, 60% of the value of the materials
found shortage, be recovered from him in equal installments
commencing from January, 2005. The writ petition in W.P. No.7507/2005
preferred by the said Chinnadurai, who was also punished for the same
act as that of the appellant, was dismissed on 07.03.2005.
16. It is also well settled that the scope of High Court to interfere
with the findings of the Enquiry Officer in writ jurisdiction under Article
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 8/11
W.A.No.1473 of 2021
226 of the Constitution of India is very limited. This court, cannot sit in
appeal over the findings of the authority assuming the role of the
appellate authority. The interference by High Court in those matters, is
possible only when there is a substantial evidence to show that on the
available material, the findings recorded by the enquiring authorities
could not have been reached by any ordinary prudent man or the
findings were perverse.
17. In this case, at every stage, the appellant was given an
opportunity and after a detailed enquiry, the punishment was imposed
proportionately considering his designation. Therefore, when the findings
of the disciplinary authority is immuned from interference within the
limited scope of power of judicial review available to this court, the
reasonings given by the learned single Judge is correct, which does not
warrant any interference in this writ appeal.
18. In view of the above, the writ appeal is dismissed. However,
there is no order as to costs.
(P.S.N., J.) (K.R., J.)
02.09.2021
Index : Yes / No
Asr
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 9/11
W.A.No.1473 of 2021
To
1.The Chairman
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002
2.The Chief Engineer
Ennore Thermal Power Station
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Ennore, Chennai - 600 057
3.The Superintending Engineer
Purchase/Administration
Ennore Thermal Power Station
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Ennore, Chennai - 600 057
4.Stores Controller
Ennore Thermal Power Station
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Ennore, Chennai - 600 057
5.Stores Officer (Verification)
(office of the Chief Financial Controller
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai-2)
Now working at
Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle-West
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Ambattur, Chennai
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 10/11
W.A.No.1473 of 2021
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
AND
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
Asr
W.A. No.1473 of 2021
02.09.2021
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 11/11
