M.Kannan vs The Chairman Cum Managing ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4851 Mad

                                                                        W.P(MD)No.10136 of 2023


                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                            DATED : 26.04.2023

                                                  CORAM

                            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

                                        W.P(MD)No.10136 of 2023
                                                  and
                                        W.M.P.(MD)No.8955 of 2023


                M.Kannan                                                ... Petitioner
                                                       Vs.



                1.The Chairman cum Managing Director,
                  Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
                  No.144, Anna Salai,
                  N.P.K.R.R.Maligai, Chennai-600 002.

                2.The Chief Engineer (Personal),
                  Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
                  No.144, Anna Salai,
                  N.P.K.R.R.Maligai, Chennai-600 002.

                3.The Chief Engineer (Distribution),
                  TANGEDCO,
                  Tirunelveli Region,
                  Maharaja Nagar,
                 Tirunelveli-627 011.

                4.The Enquiry Officer / Executive Engineer (General),
                  TANGEDCO/TNEB,
                  Central Office, Thoothukudi,
                  Thoothukudi Electricity Distribution Circle,
                  Thoothukudi.                                          ... Respondents


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                1/5
                                                                            W.P(MD)No.10136 of 2023




                Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
                praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 3 & 4
                to keep the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in abeyance till the
                completion of trial in criminal case against the petitioner in Spl.Case No.1 of
                2021 on the file of the Special Court for Prevention of Corruption Act Cases,
                Tirunelveli in the light of Judgment reported in (2016) 9 SCC 491 (State Bank
                of India Vs. Neelam Nag).


                                  For Petitioner   : Mr.P.Subbiah

                                  For Respondents : Mr.S.Arivalagan
                                                    Standing Counsel


                                                   ORDER

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

2. The petitioner is a TANGEDCO employee. He is said to have

demanded illegal gratification. Trap was laid. It was successful. The petitioner

was arrested. Criminal prosecution was launched against the petitioner. It is

now pending on the file of the Sub Court, Tirunelveli in Spl.C.No.1 of 2021 for

Prevention of Corruption Case. In the mean while, disciplinary action against

the petitioner is about to take off. The petitioner wants this Court to put the

enquiry proceedings on hold till the criminal prosecution is concluded.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P(MD)No.10136 of 2023

3. The learned standing counsel drew my attention to the recent decision

passed by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court wherein a learned Judge of

this Court had directed that the employer can parallely conduct disciplinary

proceedings also. In fact, pursuant to the said order, the Government of Tamil

Nadu had also issued a G.O. Though the contentions advanced by the learned

standing counsel do appeal to me, I am inclined to follow the course of action

indicated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Neelam Nag case ((2016) 9 SCC 491)

The petitioner is facing a very serious charge. If his defence is exposed in the

departmental enquiry, his right to fair trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India will definitely be affected. At the same time, this Court

cannot lose sight of the fact that the criminal case will take a long time to get

concluded. The employee will be drawing subsistence allowance in the

meanwhile. That is why, to balance the rival interests, the Hon'ble Apex Court

held that disciplinary action can be put on hold for a period of one year alone.

4. I therefore, direct the respondents to keep the enquiry proceedings on

hold for a period of one year from today. Whether the criminal case gets

concluded or not, disciplinary action can very well resume thereafter.

As rightly pointed by the learned standing counsel for the respondents, an

employee is presently getting 75% of the salary as subsistence allowance.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P(MD)No.10136 of 2023

Such enhancement is made because an employee should not suffer on account

of the pendency of the criminal proceedings. In the case on hand, it is the

petitioner who wants to keep the enquiry proceedings on hold. Therefore, the

petitioner himself comes forward to say that subsistence allowance can be

reduced to 50% of the salary from the current 75%. It will come into effect

from 01.06.2023 onwards.

5. With this direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

                                                                               26.04.2023
                Index             : Yes / No
                Internet          : Yes/ No
                rmi




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

                                        W.P(MD)No.10136 of 2023




                                  G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.


                                                           rmi




                                  W.P(MD)No.10136 of 2023




                                                 26.04.2023


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis