S.K.Thiruvenkadam v. The Chief Engineer

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:22.02.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI S.K.Thiruvenkadam ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Chief Engineer, TANGEDCO, Distribution, Thennur, Trichy.

2.The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO, Trichy City Distribution Circle, Trichy.

3.The Executive Engineer, TANGEDCO, Musiri, Trichy District. ... Respondents Prayer:Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to conclude the charge memo issued against the petitioner in Ku.Aa.No. 9940/301/Ni.Pi.Pi./Pi.2/Ko.O.Na/2022, dated 16.09.2022 within the time stipulated by this Court.

1/5

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramsundarvijaya Raj For Respondents : Mrs.M.Parameswari

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed for a direction to the respondents to conclude the charge memo issued against the petitioner in Ku.Aa.No.9940/301/Ni.Pi.Pi/Pi.2/Ko.O.Na/2022, dated 16.09.2022, within a specified period.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner joined the service as Technical Assistant in the respondent Corporation in the year 1990. Subsequently, he was promoted as Junior Engineer Grade -II in the year 2000. While being so, in the year 2018, he was issued with a charge memo, dated 15.05.2018, alleging demand of bribe. Subsequently, the second respondent vide proceedings, dated 15.09.2022, cancelled the charge memo issued against the petitioner. However, on the very next day on 16.09.2022, the first respondent issued a fresh charge memo for the very same occurrence of demanding bribe, which is highly illegal. However, the petitioner gave his explanation on 17.10.2022. Subsequently, the second respondent was appointed as an 2/5

Enquiry Officer and enquiry has been conducted. However, till date the disciplinary proceedings was not concluded. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with the aforesaid prayer.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that as the petitioner is going to retire in the month of March, it would suffice, if the second respondent is directed to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a reasonable time.

4. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents, has no serious objection for such an order being passed by this Court.

5. Considering the limited request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court, without going into the merits of the matter, directs the second respondent to consider the petitioner's explanation, dated 17.10.2022 and conclude the disciplinary proceedings after providing opportunity to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

3/5

6. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

22.02.2023 PM NCC:Yes/No Index:Yes/No To The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO, Trichy City Distribution Circle, Trichy.

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

4/5

pm 22.02.2023 5/5