Dismissal modified to compulsory retirement
CHENNAI: Taking a lenient approach, the Madras High Court has converted the dismissal of an engineer attached to the TN Electricity Board, on graft charges, into one of compulsory retirement.
Justice R Suresh Kumar came to the rescue of PV Sarguru, while partly allowing his writ petition, which challenged his dismissal, last week.
“The impugned order dated May 9, 2005 is modified to the extent that the petitioner shall be placed under compulsory retirement as a punishment and in view of the same, all service benefits for which he is entitled to, in the relevant rules of the organisation, shall be given to him within three months,” the judge said.
According to petitioner, the criminal case registered against him ended in conviction initially. But on an appeal, the High Court had acquitted him of the graft charges. Since an honourable acquittal had been made for the same set of charges, the departmental proceedings, which ended in punishment cannot stand, he contended.
Justice Suresh Kumar pointed out that though initially the criminal case ended in conviction, ultimately it was reversed and the petitioner has been set free by this court. However, even before this happened, the departmental proceedings were conducted, which ended in the dismissal of the petitioner. Therefore, one cannot find any fault with TNEB for proceeding against him.
However, the judge said he must give credence to the findings of the court in the criminal proceedings, where the judge had considered the entire material and findings of the trial court which had given a finding that the main witness, who was the complainant before the trap case, was an interested person. The demand itself and the acceptance of gratification were not proved, the judge had held. When there was a categorical finding of this nature by this court in the said criminal case, the same can be pressed into service in respect of the present case too, Justice Suresh Kumar said.
“This court is of the considered view that at least some lenient view should be shown to the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner had served in the board from 1967 till dismissal in May 2005 without any remark.