One line order is non-peaking order and non est.

Petitioner has filed the W.P.No.14204 of 1991 seeking to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the order of the disciplinary Authority in his Reference No.009496/456/DF I/86-15 dated 11. 1987 as confirmed by the order of the Appellate Authority in Reference No. Permanent B.P. (Ch) No.91, Administrative Branch dated 2. 1989 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to reimburse the amount of Rs.27,000 already recovered with interest and costs.

2. The petitioner also filed W.P.No.10117 of 1992 seeking to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to Memo No.086512/723/Admn.Br/C6-2/90-21 dated 212. 1990 as confirmed in the order dated 23. 1991 in Reference No.036629/328/Adm.Br/06(2)/91-1 dated 23. 1991 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to include his name in the panel of names for promotion for the year 1990 above respondents 2 and 3.

3. In the affidavit filed in support of the W.P.No.14024 of 1991, the petitioner would reveal his case contending that he joined the respondent Board on 11. 1965 and rose to the position of Store-Keeper, Grade-I at Vellore Electricity Distribution circle, Ranipet, that he has put in 25 years of service, that while so, on 7. 1983 he sealed the godown and returned the next day afternoon, he found the seal was altered and tampered with the Aluminum Conductor Bits Kept at the Stores, that immediately he lodged a complaint to the Stores-officer and as per the directions of the Stores-Officer he weighted the Aluminum Bits kept at the godown and found a shortage of about 3756.5 kgs. and informed the same to the stores officer on 27. 1983; that based on which the stores-officer lodged a complaint with the local Inspector of Police regarding the missing of the Aluminium Bits valued at Rs.34,000.

4. The further case of the petitioner is that to his surprise he was issued with a memo dated 27. 1983 by the Stores-Officer calling for the explanation for the loss of the Aluminium conductor its and on 8. 1983 he submitted his explanation that not satisfied with this explanation, the respondent Board served him with a charge memo dated 4. 1984 on account of the loss of the said materials fixing the responsibilities with him. The petitioner would contend that the charge memo was issued by a person not competent to issue he same and hence the entire disciplinary proceeding gets vitiated that again on 14. 1984 he submitted his explanation for the charge memo rebutting the charges and assigning the reasons to the effect that he cannot be held responsible for the missing items, that thereafter an additional charge memo dated 7. 1984 was issued which is extracted hereunder:

“Charge A: That the materials of AAC useful bits of 3756.5 kgs which was under his custody missed from stock only due to the slackness and carelessness of Thiru T.P.Krishnan, Store Keeper/I Grade then in charge of ‘C’ section.

“Charge B: That he failed to make frequent periodical verification of the materials entrusted to him as per Boards instructions. Had frequent periodical verification been done, the loss could have been avoided (Standing Order No.19(ix).

“Charge C: He has failed to maintain a tally register for the materials indicating the No. of coils their weigh source of receipt and date of receipt etc. as per Boards instructions issued from time to time, resulting in the list of materials (Standing Order No.19(ix).

“Charge D: He has failed to provide tag to each consignment of coils received from other stores and taken into stock account by him and enter them properly in the tally register, resulting in the loss of materials (Standing Order No.29(ix).

“Charge E: He has failed to properly maintain the yard materials register and failed to conduct daily verification of the materials stores in the outdoor yard daily resulting in the loss to the Board (Standing order No.19(ix).

Charge F: He has failed to provide any prote