The disciplinary and appellate authorities must consider the defence in proper perspective and apply their minds to the relevant parameters while recording guilt.

Based on the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, by way of charge memo, dated 212. 1999, the petitioner was imposed with a penalty of stoppage of increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect with an intention to affect his pension. Besides, recovery of the cost of the materials to the tune of Rs.1,62,209/- has also been made by the Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (O & M), (Dharmapuri Electricity Distribution Circle), Palacode, second respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal on 21. 2001 and the same was rejected on 30.7.2001 by the Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Dharmapuri Electricity Distribution Circle, Dharmapuri, first respondent herein. Both the orders are challenged in this Writ Petition.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that for the disciplinary action taken against him, he had offered his valid explanation. Not satisfied with the same, an enquiry officer was appointed. As he was biased, the petitioner, by his letter, dated 25. 2000, had requested the second respondent for change of enquiry officer and that his request was denied. However, the enquiry officer submitted his report, holding that the petitioner was guilty of all the three charges. Though the petitioner had submitted a valid further explanation, without considering the same, the Disciplinary Authority, accepting the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, has imposed a punishment of postponement of increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect, inclusive of the period spent on leave and also ordered for recovery of cost of the materials.

3. Though the impugned orders are at tacked on many grounds, such as failure to provide reasonable opportunity to put forth his defence effectively, bias on the part of the enquiry officer in not permitting him to cross-examine the witnesses and such other grounds, this Court, on perusal of the orders under challenge, deems it fit, that it is not required to delve into all the grounds raised in this Writ Petition, for the reason that there is an apparent error on the part of the authorities in not considering the defence in proper perspective.

4. Mr. S. Aravindan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the disciplinary as well as the appellate authorities have failed to consider the purport of the word “consider”, while imposing the penalty on the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the Electricity Board attempted to justify the impugned orders on the basis of the findings and the averments made in the counter affidavit, but I am not inclined to accept the same, as the impugned order has to fall or succeed on the reasons stated therein. Useful reference can be made to the following decisions.

5. In Mohinder Singh Gill V. Chief Election Commr., AIR 1978 SC 851; (1978) 1 SCC 405, and at paragraph 8, the Apex Court held as follows:

“8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, it validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise.

Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds latter brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of BOSE, J. in Commr., of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, AIR 1952 SC 16:

“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 much be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.”

6. The above position of law