K.Jayasankar v. The Superintending Engineer

2025:MHC:1604

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 25-06-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN K.Jayasankar Petitioner(s) Vs 1.The Superintending Engineer TANGEDCO, Tirupatur.

2.The Assistant Executive Engineer (O&M) TANGEDCO, Vaniyambadi.

Respondent(s) PRAYER To direct the Respondents herein to keep the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Petitioner in abeyance till the disposal of the criminal case pending in Spl.C.C.No.07 of 2021 on the file of the Learned Chief Judge Magistrate cum Special Judge, Vellore.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.P.Aravindhan For Respondent(s):

Mr.C.Manoharan Standing Counsel (For TANGEDCO) Page No.1 of 6

ORDER

The writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents to keep the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner in abeyance until the disposal of the criminal case pending in Spl.C.C.No.07 of 2021 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Vellore.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a criminal proceeding is pending against the petitioner on similar charges. It is further submitted that the documents and witnesses relied upon in the criminal proceedings are the same as those relied upon in the disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, it is essential that the disciplinary proceedings be kept in abeyance until the disposal of the criminal proceedings, as otherwise, the petitioner's right to defense would be affected. In this connection, the petitioner sent a representation to the respondents on 24.03.2025, which is yet to be considered by the respondents.

Page No.2 of 6

3. At this juncture, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO) would vehemently contend that the pendency of the criminal proceedings is not a bar to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings, as the standard of proof in the criminal proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings are different. Hence, the counsel prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

4. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by both sides.

5. This Court is of the view that though the learned Standing Counsel would object the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the fact remains that the petitioner's representation dated 24.03.2025 is yet to be considered. In such view of the matter, without going into the merits of the writ petition, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 24.03.205 and pass order according to its own merits and in accordance with law. The respondents are directed to dispose of Page No.3 of 6

the representation within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6. With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

25-06-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Jeni Page No.4 of 6

To 1.The Superintending Engineer TANGEDCO, Tirupatur 2.The Assistant Executive Engineer (O And M) TANGEDCO, Vaniyambadi Page No.5 of 6

C.KUMARAPPAN J.

Jeni 25-06-2025 Page No.6 of 6