K.Easter Raj v. The Chairman Cum Managing Director

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 09-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA AND WMP NO. 23067 OF 2026 K.Easter Raj Administrative Supervisor, o/o.Executive Engineer / (O and M) /Perambur, Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle/North, Chennai-600 011 ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. the Chairman cum Managing Director Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution corporation Ltd., (TANGEDCO) Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002

2. The Chief Engineer / Personnel, Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Ltd., Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002

3. The Director / Distribution, Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Ltd., Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002

4. The Chief Engineer / Distribution Chennai Region/North, Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Ltd., Guindy, Chennai-32

5. The Superintending Engineer Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Ltd., Chennai Electricity Distribution circle/west, Chennai-600 040

6. The Enquiry officer Executive Engineer / O and M / Anna Nagar, Chennai Electricity distribution circle/ west Chennai-600 040 ..Respondent(s) Prayer;- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorari calling for the entire records connected with the impugned 2nd Charge memo, issued by the 5th respondent in Ku.Aa. No.36/ may.Po/ Se/ Me.Pa.Va/ West. N.A/ Ni.May/ Ni.Pe.II/ U-1/ Ko.O.Na/ 2025 dated 28.03.2025 and to quash the same. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.R.D.Ashok Kumar forMr.S.N.Ravichandran For Respondent(s):

Mr.K.Purushothaman, Standing Counsel

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- "calling for the entire records connected with the impugned 2nd Charge memo, issued by the 5th respondent in Ku.Aa. No.36/ may.Po/ Se/ Me.Pa.Va/ West. N.A/ Ni.May/ Ni.Pe.II/ U-1/ Ko.O.Na/ 2025 dated 28.03.2025 and to quash the same."

Brief Facts:-

2. The petitioner would submit that he had initially joined the respondent Corporation as a Typist on 13.08.2003 and is presently serving as an Administrative Supervisor. His next avenue of promotion is to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer.

3. The petitioner would submit that, as he had rendered satisfactory service and no departmental proceedings were pending against him on the crucial date, his name was included in the approved panel for promotion to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer for the panel year 2023-24. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent by Memo dated 17.12.2024 had issued allotment orders to 5 employees including the petitioner and posted the petitioner at Vellore Electricity Distribution Circle. On 19.12.2024, the Chief Engineer/Distribution, Vellore Region had issued re-posting order and posted the petitioner as Assistant Administrative Officer in the Sholinghar Division. However, the said promotion and posting orders were subsequently cancelled by Memoof the 1st respondent dated 15.02.2025.

4. The petitioner would submit that the Executive Engineer/General, Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle/Central, had issued an enquiry notice dated 21.08.2024 directing the petitioner to appear for an enquiry on 29.08.2024 in connection with a complaint of sexual harassment alleged to have been made against him. According to the petitioner, the constitution of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) was not in conformity with the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

5. The petitioner would further submit that the complaints preferred by the alleged victims were barred by limitation under Section 9 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 and, therefore, the ICC has no jurisdiction to entertain and enquire into the allegations.

6. The petitioner would submit that, despite raising objections regarding the jurisdiction and constitution of the ICC, the Committee had proceeded with the enquiry in a prejudiced manner. It is alleged that copies of the complaints were not furnished to him, no adequate opportunity of defence was provided, statements of the complainants were recorded in his absence, permission to cross-examine the complainants was denied, and a copy of the ICC Report was also not furnished to him.

7. Thereafter, based on the complaint and the proceedings before the ICC, a Charge Memo dated 18.12.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the "first Charge Memo") came to be issued to the petitioner. The petitioner would submit that the departmental enquiry pursuant to the first Charge Memo was not conducted in accordance with law. According to him, no Presenting Officer was appointed and the Enquiry Officer acted as Judge cum Prosecutor. It is also stated that the complainants were not examined during the enquiry and that one Thiru.Subramanian, Administrative Officer, Chennai EDC West, was examined

as a witness. The petitioner alleges that the said witness had no direct knowledge of the incident and that he was not afforded an opportunity to crossexamine him. While the enquiry pursuant to the first Charge Memo was still in progress, the fifth respondent had issued another Charge Memo dated 28.03.2026 (hereinafter referred to as the "second Charge Memo") in respect of the very same allegations, without considering the objections raised by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, both Charge Memos contain identical charges, witnesses, and documents, the only difference being that the ICC Report has been included as one of the documents in the annexure to the second Charge Memo.

8. The petitioner would submit that the issuance of the second Charge Memo in respect of the same alleged incident amounts to double jeopardy and is unsustainable in law. It is his case that the respondents have sought to fill up the lacunae in the first Charge Memo by issuing the impugned second Charge Memo while the inquiry pursuant to the first Charge Memo is still pending. Therefore, challenging the same the petitioner is before this Court.

9. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the records.

10. The first Charge Memo dated 18.12.2024 issued to the petitioner is extracted hereinbelow:-

11. The second Charge Memo dated 28.03.2025 issued to the petitioner is extracted hereinbelow:-

12. A mere perusal of the above Charge Memos would clearly demonstrate that they are identical.

13. Therefore, considering the fact that the second Charge Memo dated 28.03.2025 is nothing but a repetition of the first Charge Memo dated 18.12.2024, and that the enquiry pursuant to the first Charge Memo is still underway, the impugned second Charge Memo is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.

14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned second Charge Memo dated 28.03.2025 is set aside. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

09-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order SHR To

1. The Chairman cum Managing Director Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution corporation Ltd., (TANGEDCO) Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002

2. The Chief Engineer / Personnel, Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Ltd., Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002

3. The Director / Distribution, Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Ltd., Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002

4. The Chief Engineer / Distribution Chennai Region/North, Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Ltd., Guindy, Chennai-32

5. The Superintending Engineer Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Ltd., Chennai Electricity Distribution circle/west, Chennai-600 040

6. The Enquiry officer Executive Engineer / O and M / Anna Nagar, Chennai Electricity distribution circle/ west Chennai-600 040

P.T.ASHA J.

SHR AND WMP NO. 23067 OF 2026 09-06-2026