V. Muthukrishnan, v. The Chief Engineer

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.06.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2013 V.Muthukrishnan ... Appellant / Petitioner Vs.

1.The Chief Engineer (Distribution), Tamil Nadu General and Distribution Corporation Ltd., Tirunelveli.

2.The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu General and Distribution Corporation Ltd., Virudhunagar Electricity Distribution Circle, Virudhungar.

3.M.G.Vajravelu 1/5

4.The Executive Engineer (Distribution), Enquiry Officer, Tamil Nadu General and Distribution Corporation Ltd., Srivilliputtur.

... Respondents / Respondents PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying this Court to set aside the order dated 12.08.2013 made in W.P.(MD)No.13239 of 2013 on the file of this Court.

For Appellant : No Appearance For Respondents : Mr.S.Arivalagan, Standing Counsel

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.) This Writ Appeal is directed against the order passed by the Writ Court dated 12.08.2013 made in W.P.(MD)No.13239 of 2013. 2.Before the Writ Court, the appellant / writ petitioner challenged the charge memorandum dated 26.04.2013 issued by the 1st respondent. The said Writ Petition was dismissed by order dated 12.08.2013. Against which this intra-court appeal has been filed.

2/5

3.Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent TANGEDCO, on instructions, would submit that during the pendency of this Writ Appeal for nearly about 10 years, enquiry went on on the impugned charge memo and ultimately, the enquiry officer found that the charge framed against the appellant / petitioner had not been proved. Accepting the enquiry officer's report, the disciplinary authority had dropped the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the appellant employee.

4.The said submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent is taken on record, which cannot be controverted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant / writ petitioner. 5.In view of the same, since the very charge has been enquired and ultimately, found that the charge had not been proved and the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the appellant / employee was dropped, nothing would survive to be adjudicated in this case further. Therefore, recording the aforestated development, we feel that this Writ 3/5

Appeal can be disposed of, accordingly, it is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (R.S.K., J.) & (K.K.R.K, J.) 08.06.2023 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No MYR 4/5

R.SURESH KUMAR, J.

AND K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

MYR 08.06.2023 5/5