← Library
Madras High CourtWP/2077/2023disposed of

A.Gurubalan v. The Superintendent Engineer

2023-01-27Honourable Mr Justice N. Anand Venkatesh6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 27.01.2023 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH and W.M.P.Nos.2159 and 2160 of 2023 A.Gurubalan ...

Petitioner Vs.

1. The Superintending engineer, D.E.P.A.V/N.I.P2/N.I.P3, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai.

2. The Executive Engineer (E.E) O & M, Arani, Tamil Nadu Electricity and Distribution Board, Executive Engineer Office, Arani, Thiruvannamalai District.

3. The Assistant Executive Engineer, (A.E.E) O & P/West-Arani, Thiruvannamalai District.

4. The Assistant Executive Engineer (A.E.E) O & P/Thirumani, Thiruvannamalai District. ... Respondents 1/6

PRAYER: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records on the file of the 2nd respondent proceedings in C.No.420/ E.E/ O&M/ Arani/ Admin/ oo.1/ Co.O.N/ 2022 dated 21.12.2022 and quash the same.

For Petitioner : M/s.T.V.G.Kartheeban For Respondents : Mr.K.Rajkumar, Standing counsel - - - - -

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the charge memo issued by the 2nd respondent through proceedings dated 21.12.2022.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was working as a Line Inspector in the Sub-station, Arani Division. There was some dispute among the non-clerical employees and based on the same, false charges were initiated against the petitioner by the 2nd respondent by virtue of the charge memo dated 21.12.2022. The petitioner was also suspended from the service by the 2nd respondent through proceedings dated 17.12.2022. According to the petitioner, 2/6

there is no mention as to the standing order based on which the proceedings are being continued. That apart, the charge itself has been framed against the petitioner due to malafide motive.

3. Heard M/s.T.V.G.Kartheeban, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.K.Rajkumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

4. In the considered view of this Court, there are limited grounds to interfere with the charge memo. Considering the nature of charges that have been framed against the petitioner, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the same. The charge memo has been issued to the petitioner along with all the documents. Hence, it would be more appropriate if a time limit is fixed to complete the disciplinary proceedings.

5. In the light of the above discussion, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to complete the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the petitioner will co-operate for the completion of the disciplinary proceedings within the time frame fixed by this 3/6

Court without adopting any dilatory tactics. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

27.01.2023 Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order.

Internet : Yes/No.

Index: Yes/No.

nhs 4/6

To

1. The Superintending engineer, D.E.P.A.V/N.I.P2/N.I.P3, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai.

2. The Executive Engineer (E.E) O & M, Arani, Tamil Nadu Electricity and Distribution Board, Executive Engineer Office, Arani, Thiruvannamalai District.

3. The Assistant Executive Engineer, (A.E.E) O & P/West-Arani, Thiruvannamalai District.

4. The Assistant Executive Engineer (A.E.E) O & P/Thirumani, Thiruvannamalai District.

5/6

N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.

nhs 27.01.2023 6/6