C O M M O N O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the penalty order passed by the fourth respondent dated 15.05.2012 in Proceedings No.Ko.Parthasarathy/EA2/2012 and the appellate order passed by the third respondent, thereby confirming the order passed by the fourth respondent dated 31.07.2013 in Proceedings No.Ko.Parthasarathy/E1/2013.

2. The petitioner was originally appointed as Electrician on a consolidated pay of Rs.2,000/- in the year 1997. Thereafter, he was regularized in the same post from 01.08.2006. Further, he was transferred from Madukkarai Pumping Station to Velliangadu Sub Division on 14.02.2011. Thereafter, he fell sick with Ulcer and abdominal pain and he was compelled to proceed on leave on medical grounds. The petitioner applied for leave on medical grounds in three spells, firstly for 30 days from 12.03.2011 to 10.04.2011, secondly for 15 days from 11.04.2011 to

25.04.2011 and lastly for 29 days from 25.04.2011 to 24.05.2011, supported by medical certificates issued by the Doctors. Even then, he was referred before the Medical Board on 16.05.2011 for medical examination. The Medical Board issued certificate stating that the petitioner had not recovered from his illness to resume duty from 17.05.2011. Further, it is stated that the medical certificates issued for the period from 12.03.2011 to 16.05.2011 is not on medical grounds and may not be regularized as leave on medical grounds. Thereafter, he rejoined duty on 17.05.2011. However, the petitioner had not fully recovered from his ailment. As such, he had again applied for earned leave on personal grounds from 20.05.2011 to 03.06.2011. Therefore, he was placed under suspension by an order dated 01.07.2011. In pursuant to the suspension order, he was served with charge memo dated 14.07.2011 under Rule 9 (b) of TWAD Employees (D & A)

Regulations, 1972, which reads as follows:-

“a) Charge 1:- That the official committed misconduct by availing of leave on medical grounds by producing false and bogus medical certificates;

b) Charge 2:- That the official committed misconduct by unauthorized absence without obtaining prior sanction or by submitting leave application, in terms of Rule VII of XXXV of Board's (D & A) Regulations, 1972; c) Charge 3:- That the Official;s conduct was tantamount to lack of devotion to duty.

d) Charge 4:- That by his acts, the Official has violated Rule 3 of the TWAD Board Staff Regulations, 1972.”

3. In pursuant to the charge memo, the petitioner submitted his representation dated 03.07.2011. However, on being not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer was appointed and domestic enquiry was conducted. The petitioner submitted his representation asking for list of witnesses and list of documents to prove the charges, which are mandatory under the Certified Standing Orders of the TWAD Board. However, he was not provided with the list of witnesses and documents. Further, before the Enquiry Officer, no one was examined as a witness by the Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner was not served with any enquiry report and he was not given any opportunity to submit his explanation on the enquiry report. The petitioner was served with punishment imposed by the fourth respondent dated 15.05.2012, thereby he was imposed with the punishment of stoppage of increment for three years without cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the third respondent and the third respondent modified the punishment of stoppage of increment from three years to one year without cumulative effect.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised three grounds, namely that no list of witnesses or documents was furnished to the petitioner along with charge memo. No witnesses were examined and the enquiry was an empty formality, in which the Enquiry Officer questioned the petitioner and the enquiry was concluded on the same day. Further, the petitioner was not served with the en