Tamilnadu Electricity Board and The Superintending Engineer, Purchase and Administration, Thermal Power Station vs S. David Yesudasan

F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.—Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and its Superintending Engineer of Thermal Power Station, Thoothukudi, are the

appellants. The challenge is to the order of the learned single Judge, dated 21.12.2006, passed in W.P.(MD) No. 10447/2006. The learned Judge

allowed the writ petition of the respondent herein, who was admittedly employed as a Contract Labourer prior to his induction in the Electricity

Board on 11.02.2000. Such employment in the services of the Board was cancelled and he was terminated from service by the order dated

25.03.2000. The said termination was on the ground that the respondent produced a false education qualification certificate.

Subsequently, by B.P.(FB) No. 27 (Administrative Branch), dated 07.11.2002, the Electricity Board took a decision to re-induct all those

persons against whom allegations were made to the effect that they produced bogus education certificates. Paragraph Nos. 4 and 8 of the said

Board''s Proceedings are to the following effect.

In many cases where the individuals who were placed under suspension, pending initiation of D.P. and in cases where show cause notice

indicating the punishment of removal/dismissal from service were issued, the individual workmen have filed writ petition in the High Court

challenging the orders of suspension, charge memo, show cause notice and punishment as the case may be. Representations have also been

received from number of workmen who were dismissed/removed from service, as well as from unions, requesting for imposing lesser punishment,

instead of imposing dismissal/removal from service considering the number of years of service put in by them as Contract Labourers and then as

Helper/Wireman, as the punishment of dismissal/removal from service is too severe.

*** *** ***

The above orders will strictly apply only to the case of contract labourers absorbed as Helpers and who were dismissed/removed from service

solely for production of bogus certificate.

Mr. V. Panneer Selvam, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants'' Board, in his submissions contended that such Board Proceedings was

not applicable to the respondent and that, it is applicable only to those persons who approached this Court prior to the issuance of the above

referred to Full Board Proceedings and not to all the contract labourers who came to be inducted and who secured such induction by producing

bogus certificates.

Having perused the above referred to B.P., in particular paragraph No. 4, we are not in a position to accede to the submission of the learned

Counsel for the Board. In paragraph 4, apart from referring to the cases of removal/dismissal which were dealt with by this Court in writ

proceedings, there is also a reference to other contract labourers whose services also came to be dismissed or removed and in respect of whom

representations were received by the Board. Therefore, the Full Board took a conscious decision not to be very severe in respect of acquisition of

qualification for the jobs such as Helpers/Wireman, in respect of the contract labourers. Therefore, such benefit was extended by way of relaxation

not to throw out contract labourers, who were inducted to regular services of the Board, solely on the ground of production of bogus certificate.

The said benefit was conferred on all the employees who were placed identically, whether they had approached this Court earlier or not.

We are convinced that the said Board Proceedings should be made applicable in respect of all those contract employees whose services came

to be terminated on the ground of production of bogus certificates. The respondent is also one such contract employee, who came to be inducted

as a regular employee by the order dated 11.02.2000, which service came to be terminated by the order dated 25.03.2000 solely on the ground

that he produced a bogus certificate. Therefore, by virtue of the benefit granted under B.P. (FB) No. 27, dated 07.11.2002, the respondent is also

entitled to be re-inducted into service, in the same manner in which the services of similarly placed employees came to be restored.

Therefore, we do not find any merit in this writ appeal. The writ appeal stands dismissed and the order of the learned Single Judge stands

confirmed. No order as to costs. Connected M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2009 is also dismissed.