A.Murugesa Pandy, v. The Chairman,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH W.P.No.8016 of 2011 and M.P.No.2 of 2011 A.Murugesa Pandy
...Petitioner
-Vs1.The Chairman, 2.Chief Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Tirunelveli - 11.
3.The Secretary, 4.The Superintending Engineer, Tiruvannamalai Electricity Distribution Circle, TNEB, Tiruvannamalai District.
...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the promotion panel CMDTANGEDCO proceedings No.27, dated 14.02.2011 passed by 1st respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to include the petitioner's name in the appropriate place considering his seniority in the said list.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Manisekaran For Respondents: Mr.P.Subramanian Standing Counsel for TNEB
ORDER
With the consent of both the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal.
2. The petitioner herein was subjected to disciplinary proceedings by the respondents and accordingly, a punishment was imposed. When the petitioner had challenged the punishment order, as well as sought for inclusion of his name in the promotional panel for the year 2011-2012, this Court, by an order dated 16.02.2022 passed in W.P.Nos.18955 of 2011 and 29737 of 2012, had set aside the orders of punishment and remanded the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority for fresh consideration. In this background, it was held that the petitioner's claim for inclusion of his name in the promotional panel would depend on the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings to be initiated by the second respondent.
3. In the present case, the petitioner seeks for inclusion of his name in the promotional panel dated 14.02.2011. Since this Court has already taken a view in its order passed in W.P.No.29737 of 2012 that the petitioner's claim for promotion would depend on the outcome of the fresh disciplinary proceedings to be initiated by the second respondent, the present prayer, which is similar in nature, cannot be entertained, since the petitioner's claim in this writ petition would also depend on the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings to be initiated.
4. In view of the above, no effective orders can be passed in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed.
No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-III) //True copy// Sub Assistant Registrar hvk To 1.The Chairman,
2.Chief Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Tirunelveli - 11.
3.The Secretary, 4.The Superintending Engineer, Tiruvannamalai Electricity Distribution Circle, TNEB, Tiruvannamalai District.
+1cc to Mr.V.Manisekaran, Advocate SR.No.13689 +1cc to Mr.P.Subramanian, Advocate SR.No.13646 W.P.No.8016 of 2011 and M.P.No.2 of 2011 BS(CO) GMY(18/03/2022)