The main legal point established in the judgment is that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings and the appointment of Enquiry Officers must adhere to the relevant rules and regulations, and any violation of these rules can vitiate the proceedings.

1. The petitioner is a retired Chief Engineer of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Before his retirement he was placed on special duty as a Member of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and he retired on superannuation on 31.05.1996. He was also allowed to draw all his retiral benefits. 3 years after such retirement, the Chairman of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board chose to issue a charge memo in his proceedings No.62087/A5/A52/98-44 dated 28.10.2006 accusing him of scoring out clause 1.4.4 of draft purchase order which was to the effect that 1 USD would be equal to Rupees 31.61 as the basis of acceptable price and that, by such alteration he caused a loss of Rs.1,37,98,711/- to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board as excess payments to be made in view of the change in the exchange rate. The petitioner submitted an explanation on 05.04.1999 itself denying the charge. Holding the explanation to be not satisfactory, the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board appointed one Mr.Nagalsamy, Accounts Member as Enquiry Officer in proceedings No. 62087/A6 /A61/98-12 dated 28.12.1999. The said Nagalsamy was in the substantive post of Accounts Officer(Budget) and he was on special duty as Member (accounts) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board.

2. According to the petitioner, the said Nagalsamy was not a person holding a superior posts than the post which the petitioner held and that hence the order of appointment of Nagalsamy as Enquiry Officer was vitiated. As per the contention of the respondents, the said Nagalsamy did not complete the enquiry and submit his report which necessitated appointing another Enquiry Officer. However, the petitioner has taken a stand that he was given to understand that the said Nagalsamy submitted a report and in such report he had made an observation that the defence statement of the petitioner appeared to be correct. The further case of the petitioner is that either suppressing the report or totally rejecting the said report, Thiru.Kathiresan, Accounts Officer (Budget), who was made a Board Member on Special Duty, was appointed as Enquiry Officer. As the said Kathiresan was only an Accounts Officer (Budget), who was a subordinate to the petitioner when he was in service, the petitioner raised an objection for the appointment of Mr.Kathiresan as Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry on the charges made against the petitioner.

3. The communication regarding the appointment of Kathiresan as the second Enquriy Officer was made in Memo No.62087/A5/A52/98-44 dated 28.04.2006 and the reason for his appointment as the Enquiry Officer was stated that the previous Enquiry Officer Mr.Nagalsamy demited office on 17.11.2004. On his appointment, Mr.Kathiresan issued notice in his proceedings Memo No.M(A)/EA/DP/Enq/031/2006 dated 16.12.2006 fixing the date and time of enquiry as 27.12.2006 and 03.00 pm. Even before the said Enquiry Officer, the petitioner raised a contention that his letter dated 23.12.2006 protesting against the appointment of Mr.Kathiresan as Enquiry Officer was not replied. In addition, he also expressed his inability to mobilize his defence witnesses within a short time after notice. As the Enquiry Officer Mr.Kathiresan was not inclined to grant time, the petitioner approached this Court with the present writ petition challenging the appointment of Mr.Kathiresan as Enquiry Officer to conduct denovo enquiry as such a proceeding shall be illegal.

4. The respondents have contended that grave irregularities were committed by the petitioner while he was functioning as the Chief Engineer, Thermal Design in procuring Generation Machinary for Parson Valley Hydro Electric Project; that the said fact came to the notice of the Board after his retirement and therefore, charge memo was issued correctly invoking Section 9 of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules 1976; that the petitioner who had committed grave irregularities causing financial loss to the Board to a tune of approximately Rs. 1.38 crores, in stead of cooperat