Judgment :- 1. The relief claimed in both the writ petitions is one and the same. However, in W.P.No.9287 of 2003, it is the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Accounts and Executive Staff Union, which has filed the Writ Petition challenging the proceedings of the second respondent in letter No.071954/831/M/271/2002-2 dated 17.12.2002 which relates to petitioner in W.P.No.9363 of 2003, who, as an employee of the Electricity Board, has been representing the cases of the various employees in the disciplinary proceedings as the Circle Secretary of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Accounts and Executive Staff Union. In view of the fact that the petitioner himself has filed the writ petition in W.P.No.9363 of 2003, no order is necessary in the writ petition filed by the Union in W.P.No.9287 of 2003. 2. The Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.9363 of 2003, working as an Accounts Supervisor in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, has been admittedly representing in the Departmental proceedings initiated by the Department against various employees in various regions and assisting the employees as office bearer of the Union. As per the Board proceedings in M.S.No.1224 dated 5.7.1971, such representatives are entitled for claiming special casual leave to represent the employees cases in the disciplinary proceedings. The conditions stipulated in the said Board proceedings permits the representative to represent the cause of the employees facing disciplinary proceedings in any region, however it specifically states that in cases, where the representative has to attend such proceedings in a different region, he shall not be entitled to the travelling allowance. The procedures for the purpose of claiming the concessions by the representatives are as contemplated in the said Board proceedings dated 5.7.1971, which are sought to be implemented by the petitioner, are as follows: "..... I. For Meetings convened by the C.E.E. or by the S.E. 1. Whenever the CEE/CDE/COE or the SE convenes a meeting with the Union representatives to discuss any matter officially, he shall intimate the concerned Union in the notice itself that not more than 3 representatives shall be allowed to be present at the meeting. 2. Immediately after the meeting, the Officer concerned the CEE or the SE, as the case may be, shall issue a certificate of attendance to the representatives present at the meeting not exceeding 3 in the form annexed. 3. 2. Immediately after the meeting, the Officer concerned the CEE or the SE, as the case may be, shall issue a certificate of attendance to the representatives present at the meeting not exceeding 3 in the form annexed. 3. On receipt of the application form the concerned employees – Union representatives – together with the Certificate of attendance in the prescribed form duly authenticated with the seal of office the competent authority to grant Casual Leave shall grant the Special Leave to the applicant, for the day/s of attendance. 4. In the case of persons who have to travel outside their headquarters to attend the meeting, they may be granted S.C.L. for the actual journey time from the Headquarters station to the place of the meeting and back to the headquarters, besides the S.C.L. for the day/s of attendance to in Clause 3 above. 5. The sanctioning authority referred to in para 3 above shall normally accept the Certificate of attendance issued under the authority of the officer/s who had convened the meeting and grant the S.C.L. without any further reference, except in cases where the bonafides of the Certificate are suspected, in which case he could refer the matter to the concerned Officer under whose authority the certificate had emanated. II. Meeting convened by the Board. The same procedure as outlined in para 1 to 5 will be followed in the case of meetings convened by the Board also, subject to the modification that the number of representatives eligible for S.C.L. allowed to be present shall be 4 and the certificate of Attendance shall be issued under the authority of the Secretary, by the Assistant Secretary concerned. III. Meeting convened by the Officers of the Labour Department for attending Conciliation Proceedings etc. In B.P. Ms.No.2175 dated 18.01.1960, the Board had ordered grant of S.C.L. to Union representatives for attending various meetings convened by the Officers of the Labour Department. The authority competent to grant casual leave shall, on receipt of an application by him, from the Union representatives supported by the letter issued by the Officer of the Labour Department asking the Union to be present, grant Casual Leave to not more than two representatives of the Union to participate in the Conciliation Proceedings or any other meeting. The authority competent to grant casual leave shall, on receipt of an application by him, from the Union representatives supported by the letter issued by the Officer of the Labour Department asking the Union to be present, grant Casual Leave to not more than two representatives of the Union to participate in the Conciliation Proceedings or any other meeting. If the meeting is fixed in the After-noon, sanction of S.C.L. may be restricted to half a day in the After-noon....." 3. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that while the Board proceedings enables him to represent as a Union Office bearer, in the impugned communication of the respondent dated 17.12.2002, it is informed that in cases where the petitioner has represented the employees in a different region viz., at Kancheepuram, the leaves taken by the petitioner during that period were sought to be treated as earned leave. The said communication further states that in future when the petitioner attempts to go to other regions for representing the employees, the special leave permission shall not be granted. It also further states that what ever nature of leave is taken by the petitioner it shall be without detriment to the works of the petitioner in the Electricity Board. 4. In the representation of the petitioner addressed to the Respondent dated 22.1.2003, the petitioner has informed that in respect of 94 days, which he has taken leave for the purpose of representing the employees, there was a proposal to recover an amount of Rs.38,554/- by treating those leaves as earned leave. In fact, the letter of the 3rd respondent dated 11.6.2002 confirms the stand taken by the petitioner that the respondents are attempting to recover the amount of Rs.38,554/-, which, according to the petitioner, is opposed to the very Board proceedings, which permits the petitioner to avail leave for the purpose of representing the workers cause. 5. On facts and as submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent, it is clear that inspite of the said averments made in the impugned letter of the respondent dated 17.12.2002 to the effect that the petitioner should not be permitted to take leave for the purpose of representing the employees outside the region, the petitioner has been permitted and he has been in fact representing the workers cause in various regions. Even otherwise on a reading of the Board proceedings dated 5.7.1971 elicited above it is clear that except for travelling allowances the petitioner is entitled for the other leave facilities as long as he follows the Board proceedings dated 5.7.1971 and represent the employees in the disciplinary proceedings without any detriment to his work in the Electricity Board. In such circumstances, there is absolutely no difficulty to conclude that the said portion of the impugned letter of the 3rd respondent dated 17.12.2002 viz., conditions No.1 and 2 stating that the said leave should be treated as earned leave or the petitioner as a representative should not be permitted to go outside the circle are totally opposed to the Board proceedings itself. As far as the third condition that the conduct of the petitioner in representing the cause of the workers in the disciplinary proceedings should not be detrimental to the work to which he is assigned by the Electricity Board, there is absolutely no quarrel about the said condition since even as a representative of the Union he is expected to do the Union activities without detrimental to the work assigned to him by the Electricity Board. 6. In such view of the matter, the writ petition in W.P.No.9363 of 2003 stands allowed to the effect that condition Nos.1 and 2 of the impugned letter of the 3rd respondent dated 17.12.2002 is against the Board proceedings dated 5.7.1971 and is not sustainable and the Writ Petition stands allowed accordingly. It is needless to state that such proceedings for recovery are also against the Board proceedings and shall not be proceeded with by the respondent Electricity Board. In view of the order passed in W.P.No.9363 of 2003 filed by the petitioner in the individual capacity, no specific order is required in the other Writ Petition – W.P.No.9287 of 2003 filed by the Union. However, there is no order as to costs.