G.Muthuvel v. The Superintending Engineer

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18.02.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND G.Muthuvel ... Petitioner Vs.

The Superintending Engineer, Ramanathapuram Electricity Distribution Circle, TNEB/TANGEDCO, Bharathi Nagar, RDO Office Near, Ramanthapuram District.

... Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to revoke the suspension of the petitioner dated 12.08.2024 and reinstate him in the nonsensitive post of Commercial Inspector in light of the guidelines issued under Chapter - II, Section 2 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Employees Discipline and Appeal Regulations within the time stipulated by this Court. 1/5

For Petitioner : Mr.I.Pinaygash For Respondent : Mr.B.Ramanathan Standing Counsel

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed seeking a Mandamus directing the respondent to revoke the suspension of the petitioner, dated 12.08.2024 and reinstate him in the non-sensitive post of Commercial Inspector in light of the guidelines issued under Chapter - II, Section 2 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Employees Discipline and Appeal Regulations.

2. The case of the petitioner is that while he was working as Commercial Inspector in the respondent board, criminal case was registered against him in Crime No.17 of 2024, dated 30.07.2024 under Section 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the file of office of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Ramanathapuram. The said criminal case is pending. Pursuant to the registration of the criminal case, the respondent suspended the petitioner from service by order dated 12.08.2024. Though the petitioner was kept under suspension for a period of 6 months, it is not reviewed by the respondent as per Chapter - II, Section 2 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Employees Discipline and 2/5

Appeal Regulations, 2015. Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent in reviewing the suspension order, dated 12.08.2024, he has submitted representation, dated 06.02.2025 to the respondent to review the suspension order. Against the inaction of the respondent in considering the representation, dated 06.02.2025, the petitioner constrained to file this writ petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

4. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the petitioner was suspended on 12.08.2024 from service and requesting the respondent to review his suspension order, he made representation to the respondent on 06.02.2025 and it is pending for consideration.

5. Under these circumstances, in our considered view, it is appropriate and reasonable to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage with the consent of both parties without going into the merits of the case with a direction to the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 06.02.2025 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a stipulated time to meet the ends of justice.

3/5

6. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 06.02.2025 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. 18.02.2025 NCC:yes/no Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no Sn To:

The Superintending Engineer, Ramanathapuram Electricity Distribution Circle, TNEB/TANGEDCO, Bharathi Nagar, RDO Office Near, Ramanthapuram District.

4/5

BATTU DEVANAND , J.

Sn 18.02.2025 5/5