The dismissal of an Executive Engineer for misconduct involving financial irregularities was upheld, emphasizing the necessity of accountability and the pivotal role of supervisory responsibilities in public service.

JUDGMENT :

The appellant herein aggrieved by the dismissal of his Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus W.P(MD)No.2554 of 2015 dated 02.09.2021, had preferred this intra court Writ Appeal.

2.The appellant P.Guruva Reddiar, while serving as Executive Engineer in Rural Water Supply Division, Sivagagai, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings for manipulating the records to make excess payment to the supplier of pump-sets and thereby cause pecuniary loss to the department.

3.The Disciplinary Proceedings was initiated against this appellant and two others, on 14.12.2009. The Enquiry Officer / The Superintending Engineer TWAD, Sewerage Circle, Madurai, after enquiry, held that the charges framed against other two proved, but against this appellant ‘not proved’. However, Disciplinary Authority/ the Managing Director, TWAD Board, differed with the enquiry officer report and did not agree with the findings and conclusions of the Enquiry Officer exonerating this appellant from all charges. Hence, after causing notice of hearing to the appellant and not satisfied with his explanation, the disciplinary authority imposed the major penalty of dismissal from service vide proceedings dated 28.05.2010.

4.Aggrieved, the appellant herein preferred the statutory appeal against the order of dismissal, before the Chairman TWAD, who is the Appellant Authority, on 26.06.2010. His appeal was not taken up for consideration, hence the appellant filed W.P(MD)No.12944 of 2010 for mandamus to dispose his appeal within reasonable time. In the meanwhile, the Appellate Authority remanded the matter back to the disciplinary authority for fresh consideration. Accordingly, the disciplinary authority gave fresh notice dated 03.10.2011 and called the appellant for enquiry. Thereafter, the order of dismissal passed on 28.10.2011.

5.Challenging the dismissal order dated 28.05.2010 by the Disciplinary Authority, as confirmed by the appellate Authority vide order dated 28.10.2011, the appellant preferred WP(MD)No.13173 of 2011. This writ petition came to be allowed on 01.07.2014, holding that the order of the appellate authority is a non speaking order. Without applying the mind, the order in appeal passed simply reproducing the order of the disciplinary authority order. The Learned Judge remitted the matter back to the Appellate Authority(First Respondent) to pass appropriate orders, after giving due opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.

6.In the above said circumstances, the first respondent had given an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant and had passed an order on 01.10.2014 confirming the order of dismissal from service. This order is the subject matter of W.P(MD)No.2554 of 2015.

7.In this writ petition, the appellant contended that, the order of dismissal confirmed by the appellate authority is without assigning any reason for differing ‘not guilty’ finding of the enquiry officer. The charges are very trivial and the deliration can be attributed only to his subordinates and not to the appellant. When his subordinates namely N.R.Kannan, the Assistant Engineer and Mr. Ramakrishnan, Assistant Executive Engineer were given lesser punishment of stoppage of 3 increments with cumulative effect, the appellant alone given the major punishment of dismissal, at the fag end of his service. Which is discriminatory and bristles with disparity. The enquiry officer after holding that even if any excess amount paid to the supplier that can be recovered from the contractor in the pending bills and there will not be any pecuniary loss to the Board. No reasoning given by the Disciplinary authority or the appellate authority to reject this explanation. Therefore, the order is liable to be quashed for being non speaking.

8.The learned single Judge, after considering the above submission and the gravity of charges, has held that, when it is enough for the TWAD Board to acquire 15 metres head pumpset and the approval was only to purchase 15 metres head pumpsets, the deli