Er.P.Vijayalakshmi M.E., v. Tamil Nadu Water Supply And Drainage Board,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10.02.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN W.P.No.2861 of 2025 and W.M.P.Nos.3159 & 3161 of 2025 P.Vijayalakshmi .. Petitioner Vs.

1.Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Rep. by its Managing Director, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.

2.The Secretary cum General Manager, TWAD Board, Head Office, No.31, Kamarajar Salai, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.

.. Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records related to the impugned charge memo 17030/Estt.(DP)/A4/2018 dated 27.01.2023 framed as against the petitioner passed by the 1st respondent and the consequential enquiry proceeding bearing number Proc. No.17030/Estt.(DP)/A4/2018 dated 18.01.2024 and quash the same. For Petitioner .. Mr.V.R.Appaswamee

For Respondents .. Ms.S.Mekhala, Standing Counsel

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of a Certiorarified Mandamus seeking interference with the charge memo dated 27.01.2023 issued against the petitioner herein. The petitioner also seeks interference with the enquiry proceedings dated 18.01.2024. 2.In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition it had been stated that the petitioner was working as Assistant Engineer in Urban SubDivision, Cuddalore District. At that particular point of time, a tender had been issued for Water Supply Improvement Scheme to Chidambaram Municipality in Cuddalore District including maintenance for a period of 12 months. A contractor had been appointed. The total value of the work was Rs.5,29,54,369/-. Alleging irregularities in grant of such contract and in other works entrusted to the petitioner in her official capacity, a charge memo had been issued to the petitioner on 23.02.2023. Some of the charges had been dropped by the respondents. But still the petitioner was directed to appear for the enquiry with respect to the remaining charges. Questioning

the charge memo, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 3.It is trite in law to point out that the authority of the respondent to conduct enquiry can never be interfered with by this Court and it is for the petitioner to appear during the enquiry and make out a case for the charges to be dropped. This Writ Petition is misconceived and the same stands dismissed.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that a notice had also been issued determining the date for the enquiry. The petitioner would be well advised to attend the enquiry. The learned counsel for the petitioner also insisted that a time frame may be fixed for conducting the enquiry. If the records are available and if the petitioner does not seek adjournments, then the enquiry may be endeavoured to be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. But however, if it is found that the petitioner is seeking adjournments and not is cooperating during the enquiry then the time limit fixed by this Court would not stand. 5.With the above observations, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No

costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 10.02.2025 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No smv To 1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.

2.The Secretary cum General Manager, TWAD Board, Head Office, No.31, Kamarajar Salai, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.

smv W.P.No.2861 of 2025 10.02.2025