Madras High Court
P.Karuppasamy vs The Chairman on 24 June, 2021
W.P.(MD)No.10534 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 24.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
W.P.(MD)No.10534 of 2021
P.Karuppasamy ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Chairman,
Tamilnadu Electricity Board,
No.144, Anna Salai,
N.P.K.R.R.Maligai,
Chennai-600 002.
2.The Chief Engineer (Personnel)
Tamilnadu Electricity Board,
TANGEDCO,
No.144, Anna Salai,
N.P.K.R.R.Maligai,
Chennai-600 002.
3.The Superintending Engineer,
Tirunelveli Electricity Distribution Circle,
TANGEDCO,
Maharaja Nagar,
Tirunelveli District-11.
4.The Executive Engineer,
(Distribution/Urban),
TANGEDCO, VM Chatiram,
Tirunelveli District-11.
5.The Assistant Executive Engineer,
O/o.the Assistant Executive Engineer,
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.10534 of 2021
TANGEDCO (Distribution),
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli District-627 103. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents
1 to 3 to review and revoke the suspension order of the petitioner,
dated 30.01.2019 and reinstate the petitioner in the light of
Chapter II, Section 2(3) of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Employees
Discipline and Appeal Regulations and based on the co-accused
revocation order Memo.No.014130/436/ADM.IV/A.1/F.D.P/2019,
dated 22.07.2019 passed by the third respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.I.Pinaygash
For Respondents : Mr.T.Sakthikumaran
Standing Counsel for TANGEDCO
ORDER
This writ petition is filed for a direction to the respondents
1 to 3 to review and revoke the suspension order of the petitioner,
dated 30.01.2019 and reinstate the petitioner in the light of
Chapter II, Section 2(3) of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Employees
Discipline and Appeal Regulations and based on the co-accused
revocation order, Memo.No.014130/436/ADM.IV/A.1/F.D.P/2019,
dated 22.07.2019, passed by the third respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.10534 of 2021
2. According to the petitioner, while he was working as
Commercial Inspector, the fourth respondent, by the order, dated
30.01.2019, suspended the petitioner from service. A
chargememo, dated 10.05.2019, was issued to the petitioner.
Subsequently, on 12.06.2019 the fourth respondent lodged a false
complaint to the police and the same was registered in Cr.No.26 of
2020 for the offences under Sections 409 and 477(A) of IPC,
against the petitioner and others. The petitioner has made various
allegations against his higher officials and also filed the following
writ petitions:-
(I) W.P(MD)No.5899/2013-Challenging the order of
suspension.
(ii) W.P(MD)No.14631/2019-Challenging the chargememo.
(iii)W.P(MD)No.24941/2019- Challenging the order of fourth
respondent in reducing the subsistence allowance.
(iv) W.P(MD)No.5222/2020- Challenging the order of
appointment of Enquiry Officer.
3. This Court, by order, dated 19.03.2021, made in
W.P(MD)No.5899 of 2019, which was filed challenging the order of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.10534 of 2021
suspension, directed the fourth respondent herein to consider the
representation of the petitioner, dated 19.02.2019, in the light of
the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajay Kumar
Choudhary vs. Union of India and another reported in 2015(7)
Supreme Court Cases 291. The fourth respondent by order,
dated 06.05.2021, rejected the said request. Thereafter, the
petitioner gave representation, dated 14.06.2021 to the
respondents to review and revoke the order of suspension as per
Chapter-II Section 2(3) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Employees Discipline and Appeal Regulations and has come out
with the present writ petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner referred
to various allegations made by the petitioner against his higher
officials and submitted that a criminal case was foisted against the
petitioner and others based on the false complaint and disciplinary
proceeding has also been initiated against the petitioner to wreak
vengeance on the petitioner for the complaint given by him to
Assistant Director General of Police(Vigilance), Chennai, against
the higher officials for misappropriation of money. The learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.10534 of 2021
counsel appearing for the petitioner also submitted that the third
respondent revoked the suspension of four other co-accused in the
year 2019 itself. The third respondent is not considered the
request of the petitioner for revocation of suspension and
reinstatement of the petitioner. Relying on the pendency of the
very same criminal case, the petitioner alone is discriminated.
5. Mr.T.Sakthikumaran, learned Standing Counsel takes
notice for the respondents and submitted that in view of the
pendency of the criminal case and the disciplinary proceedings, the
petitioner's request for revocation of suspension, was rejected. The
petitioner has not challenged the said order and prayed for
dismissal of the writ petition.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and
perused the materials available on record.
7. From the above materials on record and the submission of
the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents, it is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.10534 of 2021
seen that as per Chapter-II Section 2(3) of Tamil Nadu Electricity
Board Employees Discipline and Appeal Regulations, the
respondents 1 to 3 have to review the order of suspension after
four months periodically. Further, the suspension of co-accused,
who were involved in the criminal case, was revoked by the third
respondent in the year 2019 itself. The fourth respondent while
rejecting the request of the petitioner for revocation of suspension
cited only the pendency of the criminal case and disciplinary
proceedings, but failed to take into consideration the revocation of
suspension of four other co-accused.
8. In view of the above facts, the respondents 1 to 3 are
directed to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated
14.06.2021 to review and revoke the order of suspension taking
into consideration Chapter II Section 2(3) of the Tamil Nadu
Electricity Board Employees Discipline and Appeal Regulations, the
revocation of suspension of four other co-accused and also the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary's
case [supra] and pass orders on merits and in accordance with
law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.10534 of 2021
9. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
No costs.
24.06.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
am
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.10534 of 2021
V.M.VELUMANI,J.,
am
W.P.(MD)No.10534 of 2021
24.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
