IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 25.02.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T. RAJA W.P.No.27258 of 2008 R.Gunasekaran ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Managing Director, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, No.1, Pumping Stating Road, Chintatripet, Chennai – 600 002. 2. The Employment Committee, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, No.1, Pumping Station Road, Chintatripet, Chennai – 600 002. ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of certiorari, calling for the records of the 1st respondent dated 12.10.2008 and made in Proceedings CMWSSB/P&A/Vigilance 2/10045/2007 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mrs.AL.Gandhimathi For Respondents : Mr.B.Santhakumar, Sr. Panel counsel for CMWSSB O R D E R The present writ petition has been filed by Mr.R.Gunasekaran, challenging the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent/Managing Director, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board in the proceedings No.CMWSSB/P&A/Vigilance 2/10045/2007, dated 12.10.2008. 2. The petitioner was originally appointed as Driver in the year 1982 in the respondent office. On 21.03.2007, he was issued with a show cause notice by framing the following charges:- (i) that he received loan of Rs.1,92,000/- and Rs.9,600/- for mortgaging his property but failed to mortgage the same to the Board; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (ii) that he scolded a co-employee G.Rajendran and threatened him with knife; and (iii) with the help of G.Rajendran, he took away the original documents of title relating to his property from the safety locker of the Board and mortgaged the same for Rs.10,000/- 3. The petitioner was called upon to give his explanation for the above charges levelled against him. As the petitioner did not give any explanation, the respondent appointed an Enquiry Officer to hold an enquiry. After completing the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 28.12.2007, stating that the charges 1 & 3 levelled against the petitioner were proved and in respect of charge No.2, the enquiry officer held that part of the charge was proved. A second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling for explanation for the second time on the basis of the enquiry officer's report. The petitioner, for the first time, gave his explanation refuting the findings of the enquiry officer. Not satisfied with the explanation, the first respondent has passed the impugned order, dated 12.10.2008, in and by which the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though the charges are held proved by the enquiry officer, charges 1 to 3 will not stand the scrutiny of the Court for the reason that charge No.1 says that the petitioner is said to have mortgaged his property and received Rs.1,92,000/- and also Rs.9,600/-, the question of selling the title deed would not arise. 5. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the important witness namely Mr.Rajendran was not even examined. 6. In reply the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the question of examining Mr.Rajendran would not arise in this case for the simple reason that the petitioner admittedly has not submitted his explanation to the charges levelled against him. Subsequently, when he has admitted all the charges and after the submission of the report by the enquiry officer, the explanation given was totally against his own stand taken by him in the enquiry proceedings. Therefore, the disciplinary authority, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ after considering the correctness of the enquiry report, came to the correct conclusion to pass the impugned order to compulsorily retire the petitioner from service. On the above submission, the respondent sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Heard both parties. The petitioner having received the charge memo dated 28.03.2007 failed to submit his explanation. Further, he took part in the enquiry proceedings and defended all the charges levelled against him. The enquiry officer went to the extent of even examining the delinquent employee to support his case. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel to say that the finding of the Enquiry officer is rendered without proper evidence is not sustainable. 8. So far as the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that another employee Mr.Rajendran was not examined to prove the charge against the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has produced a document dated 28.11.2007, to show that Mr.Rajendran was cross-examined in respect of the charges made against the petitioner. Therefore, the argument of the petitioner that Rajendran was not examined by the Enquiry Officer and, therefore, the Enquiry Officer's report is not sustainable, cannot be accepted. 9. Secondly, the amount said to have been received by the petitioner also appears to be huge namely Rs.1,92,000/- and then again Rs.9,600/- also was paid and received by the petitioner towards mortgage expenses. But the contention of the petitioner in the present writ petition that when he has mortgaged the property in favour of the Board, the question of selling title deeds of the both properties would not arise, can not be accepted for the simple reason that the enquiry officer, who went into all the charges by giving reasonable opportunity to the parties submitted report holding that the charges leveled against the petitioner were proved. The enquiry officer, in his report dated 28th December 2007, has stated that Thiru.Gunasekaran, Driver has accepted the first charge of not mortgaging the property in favour of the Board though he received Rs.9,600/- towards mortgage charges and on that basis held charge No.1 as proved. Secondly, the statement of R.Gunasekaran, the Driver, that one G.Rajendran, has threatened him was also partly found proved by the enquiry officer. The third charge was also partly proved, because the Driver has accepted that he has taken the document from the office and sold the property to one S.P.S.Raja for Rs.6,50,000/- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 10. In this view of the matter, this Court, sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot reappreciate the entire evidence produced before the enquiry officer. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit to interfere with the impugned order and, accordingly, there being no merit, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ogy Sd/- Asst. Registrar //True Copy// Sub Asst. Registrar To 1. The Managing Director, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, No.1, Pumping Stating Road, Chintatripet, Chennai – 600 002. 2. The Employment Committee, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, No.1, Pumping Station Road, Chintatripet, Chennai – 600 002. + 1 cc to Mr. B.Shanthakumar, Advocate SR No.13173 + 1 cc to M/s. A.L.Ganthimathi, Advocate SR No.13131 AKR(CO) SR/27.4.2010 W.P.No.27258 of 2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/