Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:-

2.1 The petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Administrative officer in the LIC of India on 05.07.1996 and was in service till 03.10.1998.

Subsequently, she was appointed as Assistant Manager in States Industries Promotion Corporation on 05.10.1998 and then on 14.02.2014 as General Manager of the Tamil Nadu Power Finance and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd (“TNPFC”). Then on 19.06.2020 TNPFC issued a charge memo with 9 charges, subsequently suspending her from the service on 24.06.2020. The petitioner was again issued with a supplementary charge memo containing 6 supplementary charges dated 27.06.2020. The charges issued against the petitioner were for the purchase of excess stock, disclosure of confidential information to unauthorized person, breach of security process, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis delay in processing death claim requests, failure to expedite, pending certificate work through system analyst, delay in communicating fund transfer rejection status, non-management of funds lying in the saving and current accounts causing loss of interest and non-declaration of petitioner’s relationship with a candidate selected by the committee of which petitioner was a part. Six supplementary charges were framed by TNPFC against the petitioner, for contributing to an article in a newspaper and acting prejudicial to the reputation and financial interest of the corporation. The charge memo was issued under TN Power Finance Service rules and Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and the charges against the petitioner were framed with the malicious intention to tarnish her good reputation gained over the years with integrity and devotion. Report of the Enquiry officer have decided to impose a punishment of "Compulsory Retirement" as per Rule No.8.15(b)(viii) read with Rule 3.04 of T.N. Power Finance Service Rules and issue orders accordingly. The Board had further decided to grant a punishment of reduction in retirement benefits i.e., Gratuity by 1/3rd amounting to Rs.2,24,753/- on the total eligible Gratuity of Rs.6,74,258/-.

5. It is further submitted that the inquiry conducted by the 4 th Respondent was not conducted in accordance with settled principles of law. petitioner was neither provided with documents nor given a fair chance of hearing which handicapped the Petitioner in defending herself and refuting the charges against her efficiently, thus resulting in a miscarriage of justice. The 4th Respondent Enquiry officer is not competent to mark Institutional Exhibits 1 to 24. The Consolidated Conduct, Discipline and Appeal (CDA) Rules 2017 is not applicable in case of this petitioner vide its circular dated 11.12.2017, the Ministry of Industries and Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises Department adopted for CPSEs and not for State Public Sector Undertaking. The TNPFC Ltd is a State Public sector undertaking to which the said rule is not applicable. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Therefore, the charges cannot be framed in a retrospective manner which is against the basic principles of law. The Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules upon which the Charge memo served to the Petitioner is not applicable to the employees of the Tamil Nadu Power Finance and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd since the employees of TNPFC are governed only by the Service rules of Tamil Nadu Power Finance and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. In view of the above, Charge memo and supplementary charge memo are not maintainable. Aggrieved by the above order passed by the 3rd respondent dated 13.10.2021 the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9.2 The 3rd Respondent issued a memorandum No. TNPFC/P&A/2020/GM/CS/, Dated 19.06.2020, consisting of 9 charges framed under Tamil Nadu Power Finance and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited Services Rules, read with 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal ) Rules against the petitioner, who worked as General Manager more than 6 years. The said Charges along with supplementary charges have been framed for certain serious irregularities committed by the petitioner while functioning as General Manager of the 3 rd Respondent. The same was denied by the petitioner through written representation. Subsequently, not satisfied with the same, the respondent appointed a senior IAS officer in the cadre of Additional Chief Secretary as an Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry officer completed the enquiry and a report was filed to the 3rd respondent with regard to 15 charges, out of which 14 charges were held to be proved. The same was placed before the Committee of 2nd Respondent/Board for approval. The 2nd respondent sent a report to the petitioner for further representation. The petitioner submitted her representation for the same to the 2nd respondent. Not satisfied with the petitioner’s representation, the 2nd Respondent/Board passed an impugned order of compulsory retirement. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9.3. The charges leveled against the petitioner and findings and conclusions of the inquiry authority are extracted hereunder:-

25. He further submitted that the allegation that the Writ Petitioner is not governed by the Consolidated Conduct, Discipline and Appeal (CDA) Rules 2017 is contrary to law. No doubt the Tamil Nadu Power Finance Infrastructure and Development Ltd is a State Public Sector Undertaking and the Writ Petitioner cannot contend that the Charges cannot be framed in a retrospective manner. The respondents submits that the charges were framed only in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Tamil Nadu Power Finance Infrastructure and Development Ltd, with strict adherence to the principles of law and therefore the Writ Petitioner cannot now contend the Charges were framed in violation o the principles of law. The Respondent submits that the Writ Petitioner cannot now pretend that the mistake on account of negligence is only a technical lapse and therefore the same cannot be deemed to be wilful or wanton as there is no verifiable financial loss to the organization. The Writ Petitioner had admitted her negligence and therefore the charges against her are https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis deemed to be proved and the findings of the Enquiry officer are in order.