The petitioner has challenged the order of the Managing Director, Works Supply and Drainage Board, Chermai, second respondent, dated 18. 1999, imposing a penalty of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect and for recovery of Rs.11,721/-and the order of the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, first respondent herein, in B.P. Ms. No.40(TWAD-Estt (DP) Wing), dated 2. 2000, rejecting the statutory appeal.

2. Facts leading to W.P.No,32672 of 2003 are as follows:

The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer in 1977 in the respondent-Board and thereafter, promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer in the year 1987. A charge memo, dated 1. 1998 was issued to the petitioner; Similar set of charges were also issued to other officials, viz., Executive Engineer, Assistant Engineers under Regulation 9(b) of the TWAD Board Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation, 1972, with reference to certain irregularities said to have taken place during 1988-89. In response to the above, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 6. 1988. The enquiry officer, by Ms report, dated 14. 1999, held that charges 1 and 2 as not proved and Charge No.3 as partly proved. According to the petitioner, there are two components in Charge No.3, viz., (a) Allegation regarding recording of measurement/check measurement prior to the date of agreement, and (b) Issuance of materials before signing of work order. It is further submitted that in respect of Charge No.3, the enquiry officer held that the measurement/check measurement was recorded prior to the issuance of the agreement, but after issuance of work order and payment was made to the works only after the conclusion of the agreement. With reference to the second component of Charge No.3, viz., issuance of materials before signing the work order, the same was held as not proved. In view of the above, the enquiry officer held that the charge No.3 as partly proved. The petitioner submitted his further representation to the findings recorded in the enquiry. Without appreciating the defence in proper perspective, the second respondent imposed a punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect and also ordered for recovery of Rs.11,721/-. It was also ordered that this punishment would have effect on his pension. The statutory appeal preferred to the first respondent was rejected on 2. 2000. In these circumstances, the petitioner has challenged the order of penalty.

3. Assailing the impugned orders, Mr. Kandavadivel Doraisamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that during 1988-89, severe drought conditions prevailed in Coimbatore District and the then District Collector in the course of the review meeting directed the Executive Engineer (immediate superior officer to the Petitioner) to complete all Power Pump Water Supply Scheme on war footing basis, so as to avoid the sanction of bore well under drought programme to the proposed Power Pump Scheme. Only in those circumstances, works covered under Charge No.3 were completed on war footing basis without waiting for the execution of formal agreement, but only after issuance of work order. He further submitted that the above fact was brought to the notice of the authorities and the petitioner, being a subordinate official, only, acted as per the instructions given by his immediate superior officer, viz., Executive Engineer.

4. Pointing out that the payment was made only after the conclusion of the agreement, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that inasmuch as there was no financial loss to the Board, recovery of Rs.11,721/- is erroneous. He further submitted that no charges were framed against the Petitioner for the alleged financial loss caused to the Board and even in the findings of the Enquiry Officer, there is no indication as to whether, the Petitioner had caused any financial loss to the Board. Such being the case, the second respondent erred in coming to the conclu