A. Murugan v. The Chairman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.08.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR A.Murugan S/.V.Arumugam ... Petitioner Vs.
1.
The Chairman TANGEDCO 100, Annasalai Chenani.
2.
The Chief Engineer (Personal) Anna Salai NPKRR Maligai Chennai.
3.
The Superintendent Engineer TANGEDCO Thiruppur Electricity Distributors Circle Tiruppur.
4.
The Executive Engineer TANGEDCO Thiruppur Electricity Distributors Circle Kangayam.
... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the 3rd respondent by his proceeding in Ku.A.No.000535/019-II/Ne.Pe1(2)/A.No/2016-1 dated 27.04.2016 and consequential proceedings B.P.No.171, Permanent Board Order (Permanent) Chairman cum Managing Director B.P.No.171 dated 11.10.2017 and quash the same.
For Petitioner :
Mr.N.Srinivasan for Mr.S.Sairaman For Respondents :
Mr.C.Ramkumar Standing Counsel (TNEB)
O R D E R
The captioned Writ Petition (hereinafter referred to as "WP" for the sake of brevity, convenience, and clarity) has been filed seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 27.04.2016 issued by the third respondent (hereinafter referred to as the "impugned order"). By the impugned order, the third respondent imposed on the petitioner the punishment of postponement of his next annual increment (3% of pay with grade pay) for a period of one year with cumulative effect, excluding the period, if any, spent on leave.
2. Factual Background:
2.1 The petitioner, while serving as Assistant Engineer, R.K. Nagar and later as Assistant Executive Engineer, Anupparpalayam, was issued a show cause notice (hereinafter "SCN") together with an article of charges, calling upon him to explain why punishment should not be imposed against him for alleged misconduct.
2.2 The petitioner asserts that he submitted a detailed explanation denying the charges. However, without considering his explanation in detail or assigning adequate reasons, the third respondent proceeded to pass the impugned order imposing the penalty referred to above.
3. Mr. N. Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the third respondent failed to advert to or properly consider the explanation offered by the petitioner before passing the impugned order. He contended that the order is non-speaking and arbitrary.
4. Learned counsel further submitted that the Superintending Engineer, who had conducted an enquiry into the matter, communicated to the Chief Engineer that there was no dereliction of duty on the part of the peti-
tioner. Despite this, the third respondent proceeded to impose the punishment, which renders the impugned order arbitrary, discriminatory, and liable to be set aside.
5. Per contra, Mr. C. Ramkumar, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that the third respondent, after duly considering the petitioner's explanation and the material on record, came to the conclusion that the charges stood proved. He argued that the impugned order suffers from no ilegality or infirmity and therefore warrants no interference by this Court. He prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. The rival submissions of the learned counsel for both parties, as well as the materials placed before this Court, have been carefully considered.
7. The charges framed against the petitioner were as follows: (i) The delinquent failed to take action, in accordance with Board Rules, to collect the compensation amount. Though he inspected the said electricity service connection in a day and noticed violations, he failed to initiate appropriate steps and did not personally
inspect the company on 23.10.2015.
(ii) Without conducting any inspection at Om Vinayaga Garments Company on 23.10.2015 in respect of electricity service No.172012-459, the delinquent furnished false information as though he had detected irregularities during inspection, thereby failing to discharge his duties.
(iii) The delinquent failed to advise the employees under his supervision to render honest and sincere service to the Board. Instead, he instructed them to give false statements in connection with the aforesaid proceedings relating to the service connection, thereby committing irregularities.
8. The third respondent issued the SCN dated 15.04.2016, calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation. It was also indicated that failure to submit the explanation would be construed as the petitioner having no defence, and action would be taken accordingly.
9. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 26.04.2016, denying the charges. However, without conducting a proper enquiry or affording an
opportunity of personal hearing, the third respondent passed the impugned order on 27.04.2016.
10. A perusal of the impugned order shows that although the third respondent records that the petitioner's explanation dated 26.04.2016 and other service records were "perused," there is no substantive discussion of the explanation or reasons as to why it was rejected. The order simply concludes that there is no sufficient ground to absolve the petitioner of the charges.
11. It is a well-settled principle in service jurisprudence that before imposing any penalty, the disciplinary authority must conduct an enquiry, afford the delinquent officer an opportunity to examine witnesses and documents, and render a reasoned finding. This requirement is enshrined in Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, as well as in the relevant Service Regulations.
12. In the present case, no enquiry was conducted. The punishment was imposed solely on the basis of the documents on record and the explanation of the petitioner, without either discussing the explanation or
affording a personal hearing. Such an approach is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice and the safeguards guaranteed under Article 311(2) as well as the service regulations.
13. Accordingly, this Court is of the view, impugned order is unsustainable in law.
14. For the foregoing reasons, the captioned Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.04.2016 issued by the third respondent is hereby quashed.
15. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits flowing from this order. It is needless to state that the petitioner shall also be entitled to consideration for promotion, if otherwise eligible, in accordance with the Service Regulations of the respondent Board. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition stands closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
22.08.2025 Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non-speaking mk
To 1.
The Chairman TANGEDCO 100, Annasalai Chenani.
2.
The Chief Engineer (Personal) Anna Salai NPKRR Maligai Chennai.
3.
The Superintendent Engineer TANGEDCO Thiruppur Electricity Distributors Circle Tiruppur.
4.
The Executive Engineer TANGEDCO Thiruppur Electricity Distributors Circle Kangayam.
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J., mk 22.08.2025 (1/2)