Madras High Court
S.S.Saravanabhavan vs Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation on 16 September, 2025
W.P.No.3136 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 8/9/2025
Pronounced on 16/9/2025
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K. SURENDER
Writ Petition No.3136 of 2017
and
W.M.P.No.3057 of 2017
S.S.Saravanabhavan ... Petitioner
Vs
1. Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation
and Distribution Corporation
Chief Engineer (Personnel)
No.144 Anna Salai
Chennai 600 002.
2. The Chief Engineer
Electrification Scheme – 1
No.10 A Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate
Guindy,
Chennai 600 032.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:12:36 pm )
W.P.No.3136 of 2017
3. The Superintending Engineer
Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Limited
General Construction Circle
Kamaraj Nagar Colony
Athur Bye-pass road
Salem 14. ... Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the
concerned records from the third respondent, quash the order of the third
respondent bearing Memo No.Adml/A2/F.VRS/2015 dated 10/2/2016 and
the order of the third respondent bearing
Ka.No.14338/Ni.P.1/Ni.U2/Ko.U.Po/2016 dated 24/12/2016 as illegal,
arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently direct the respondents to
reinstate the petitioner in service with full backwages, continuity of service
and all other attendant benefits.
For petitioner ... Mr.N.Balan Haridas
For respondents ... Mr.C.Ramkumar
-----
2/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:12:36 pm )
W.P.No.3136 of 2017
ORDER
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner to quash the orders dated
10/2/2016 and 24/12/2016 of the third respondent made in Memo
No.Adml/A2/F.VRS/2015 and Ka.No.14338/Ni.P.1/Ni.U2/Ko.U.Po/2016
and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service
with full backwages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits.
2. Briefly, facts of the case are that the petitioner joined the services
of the respondent Corporation on 6/3/2014. He was transferred by an order
dated 28/7/2014 from the office of the first respondent to the third
respondent. The petitioner submitted his resignation on 16/3/2015.
3. When the third respondent sought details from the Vigilance
Department, by letters dated 20/4/2015 and 30/4/2015, the Director General
of Police/Vigilance stated that there were no pending cases against the
petitioner. After receiving the said letters, third respondent addressed a
letter dated 20/5/2015 to the second respondent recommending the
acceptance of the resignation of the petitioner. Thereafter, two letters were
addressed by the third respondent on 10/2/2016 and 21/11/2016 to refund
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:12:36 pm )
the excess payment made to the petitioner. By letter dated 21/12/2016, the
petitioner wrote that his resignation was not accepted and he was not
relieved. Further, since he has recovered from his ill health, his letter of
resignation may be revoked, and requested to issue posting orders to
join duty. The third respondent then sent the impugned order enclosing
the order dated 10/2/2016. According to the third respondent, resignation of
the petitioner was already accepted on 10/2/2016 and also communicated to
him.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that
the order dated 10/2/2016 was not in existence earlier and was fabricated
only after the petitioner has addressed the letter dated 21/12/2016 seeking
revocation of his request for resignation. Since the resignation of petitioner
was not accepted by the respondents, till his letter dated 21/12/2016,
impugned proceeding dated 24/12/2016 which is an after thought has to be
quashed.
5. The learned counsel would further submit that the respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:12:36 pm )
have to reinstate the petitioner, since the petitioner has addressed a letter
prior to the acceptance of resignation. The respondents after receipt of the
letter of the petitioner dated 21/12/2016, have acted arbitrarily.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK
Vs. P.K.MITTAL {1989 Supreme (SC) 91}.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that once
the resignation of the petitioner was accepted on 10/2/2016, the question of
either accepting the request for revocation of the resignation letter or
reinstating the petitioner does not arise.
8. The claim of the petitioner that his resignation was not accepted
and he continued to be in service, as on the date of his submission of letter
dated 21/12/2016 withdrawing his resignation, cannot be accepted.
9. As seen from the letter dated 21/11/2016, which was addressed for
refund of excess payment, the Department has addressed the petitioner as a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:12:36 pm )
former Assistant Engineer and also referred to as the person who resigned
from the Board. Further it is mentioned that the petitioner has not paid an
outstanding amount of Rs.5,211/- and the same has to be paid. In the said
circumstances, it cannot be said that acceptance letter dated 10/2/2016 is a
fabricated one. It is further clear that on the said date i.e., on 10/2/2016, the
resignation was accepted, the outstanding arrived at and petitioner was
asked to pay. Since the petitioner failed to make payment, the second letter
dated 21/11/2016 was also sent to the petitioner.
10. In the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, relied on by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, the Regulations of the Bank therein, fell
for consideration. Under the Regulation, the resignation of an employee
under Clause (2) of the Regulation 20 of the Bank Regulations, it is
incumbent on an Officer of the Bank before resigning, to serve a notice in
writing of such proposed resignation and further, the resignation would not
be effected otherwise than on expiry of three months from the service of the
said notice. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that exercise of his
right to withdraw the resignation was within three months, the Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:12:36 pm )
concurred with the finding of the High Court finding favour with the stand
of the employee, that the withdrawal of his resignation letter has to be
accepted since three months have not lapsed, in accordance with the
Regulations of the Bank.
11. In the present case, the resignation letter was on 16/3/2015 and
the revocation letter of the petitioner was addressed on 21/12/2016 i.e.,
after one year and 9 months from the date of resignation. Meanwhile, the
resignation of the petitioner was accepted on 10/2/2016, as already
discussed.
12. The facts of the case in the judgment cited by the petitioner are
totally different and are not applicable to the facts on hand. The prayer of
the petitioner cannot be accepted.
13. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:12:36 pm )
(K.SURENDER,J)
16/9/2025
mvs.
Index: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:12:36 pm )
1. Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation
and Distribution Corporation
Chief Engineer (Personnel)
No.144 Anna Salai
Chennai 600 002.
2. The Chief Engineer
Electrification Scheme – 1
No.10 A Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate
Guindy
Chennai 600 032.
3. The Superintending Engineer
Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Limited
General Construction Circle
Kamaraj Nagar Colony
Athur Bye-pass road
Salem 14.
K.SURENDER, J
mvs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:12:36 pm )
Pre-delivery order made in
16/9/2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:12:36 pm )
