Enquiry cannot be done while exercising power under Art.226.

This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the second respondents dated I 19.9.2001 and to direct the second and third respondents to absorb the petitioner as helper in the North Chennai Thermal Power Station w.e.f. 27.10.1999 with all attendant monetary benefits under the impugned order, the second respondents has rejected the request of the petitioner to absorb him as helper on the basis that the Forensic Department has confirmed that the signature made by the petitioner differs in various aspects.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was working as a Group worker in Stone Picking job in the Coal Handling Plant (CHP) of the North Chennai Thermal Power Station (NCTPS) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board between 21.7.1995 to 31.3.1997. From 1.4.1997 to 23.2.1999, the petitioner worked through a contractor, Senthoor Pandi. He was transferred from the Coal Handling Plant to the Control & Instruction (C&I) Division from 24.2.1999. The petitioner was given individual identity card by the North Chennai Thermal Power Station (NCTPS) called contract labour entry pass. This, according to the petitioner was given pursuant to a Board circular dated 28.4.1999. The petitioner was one among the workers identified by the Board and his name also finds in the seniority list but lie was not absorbed despite working in the Coal Handling Plant (CHP) by the Committee set tip by the Board on 28.10.1999. It is the case of the petitioner that working in the said Coal Handling Plant (CHP), he was not absorbed and lie made several representations. Thereafter,, lie moved this Court by filing a writ petition praying for a direction to absorb him as a Helper as per the Circular dated 28.4.1999, giving him due seniority and weightage, apart from paying arrears of salary. This Court, in the order dated 20.3.2001 has directed the respondents Board to consider the representation of the petitioner within 2 months and pursuant to the same the present impugned order came to be passed after undue delay.

3. The respondents have filed the counter affidavit. It is stated by the respondents that the petitioner was not absorbed as Helper due to the reason that lie had been a proxy in the name of one P. Vijayakumar, the contractor Linder whom lie worked. Based on that doubt, he was presented the Scrutinising Committee specially constituted for examining the cases. The Scrutinising Committee has examined the records and on review of the records such as Gate Pass, acquaintance roll for payment of wages, arrears of wages and the bonus, etc., it was found by the Committee that the signatures proved that there was a impersonation. It is also the further case of the respondents that since the signatures varied with regard to vital aspects in the style, the matter was referred to the Forensic Department for examination. The Department has also found the difference in the signatures. It is also the case of the respondents that after the earlier order of this Court, the Vigilance Officer has investigated into the matter and the Officer reported in the petitioner's favour. However, the report has not exonerated of the petitioner altogether. That apart the other averments by the petitioner in the writ petition were denied. The petitioner has also filed a reply affidavit to that controverting the averments made in the Counter affidavit of the respondents.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that the petitioner has worked for 480 days as contract labourer under the respondents as admitted by the Superintendent Engineer CHP Division in his letter dated 25.1.2000 and during the period when lie has received the salary there was no variation in the signature. It is also contended by the learned counsel that in the seniority List drawn by the respondents the petitioner was shown in serial number 86. That apart, certificates were produced before the respondents to the effect that t