R. Ganesan vs The Superintending Engineer, Tamilnadu Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamilnadu Electricity Board

S. Jagadeesan, J.—The writ petition has been filed challenging the charge memo dated 11.09.2000 issued to the petitioner.

The first charge in the charge memo is that the petitioner has given the name incorrectly and failed to give the correct particulars and the same

will be an offence as per the Standing Order No. 30(iv).

The second charge is almost identical to the effect that the petitioner got appointment by furnishing false particulars with regard to the identity of

the father and also produced false certificates in respect of the age and educational qualification, which is an offence as per Standing Order No.

30(xxvii).

The short grievance of the petitioner is that the Standing Order No. 30(iv) relates to an offence with regard to the property belonging to the

Board, or any theft, or fraud. The first charge framed against the petitioner did not fall under this category and as such, the Standing Order

mentioned therein will not make out any case against the petitioner. So far as the second charge is concerned, it is the contention of the learned

counsel for the petitioner that at the time of appointment, the petitioner had convinced the appointing Committee and the appointing Committee

only after verification of the records, issued the appointment order or selected the petitioner for the post. When that be so, it is too late on the part

of the respondent to come forward with a case that the petitioner furnished false particulars.

The learned counsel for the respondent however contended that the charges were framed and the petitioner is continuing in service. Whatever

the petitioner wants to establish, he can establish in the enquiry and now virtually the enquiry was over and the final orders are being awaited.

For the disposal of the writ petition, I carefully considered the above contentions of both the counsel.

When the charges were framed against the petitioner and when the authority of the respondent is not being questioned with regard to the framing

of the charges, it is for the petitioner to face the enquiry and establish his innocence. Merely because a wrong provision has been quoted, either in

the charge memo or in the order, it will not vitiate the proceeding. Always such technical defect can be cured by the authority who framed the

charges.

So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the appointing Committee had convinced with the materials placed before

them at the time of appointment, this Court is of the view that at the time of appointment, whatever the particulars given by the petitioner are being

accepted as there may not be any doubt with regard to the genuineness of the certificates or the particulars furnished by the petitioner. So merely

because those particulars and the certificates were accepted initially, cannot stop the respondent from proceeding with the enquiry when it is

brought to their notice or when they came to know about some misgivings of the certificates or the particulars submitted by the petitioner.

The Courts have repeatedly held that there cannot be any estoppel by the management, or governmental bodies from taking any action against

the employee, when it is found that the particulars given at the time of the appointment are incorrect or false. On the same principle, here also,

merely because the appointing Committee accepted the particulars furnished by the petitioner at the time of selection of the petitioner, the

appointing committee is not stopped from taking any action when it came to know about the incorrect or false particulars furnished by the

petitioner at the time of the appointment. It is always open to the respondent to take action against the petitioner as and when it was found that the

particulars furnished by him are false or incorrect. In such manner, this Court is of the view that there is no illegality in the charges framed against

the petitioner.

Hence the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected WMP is closed.