S.Ponnusamy v. The Chairman

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 06.04.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR S.Ponnusamy ... Petitioner -vs1.The Chairman Tamilnadu Electricity Board (TANGEDCO) No.144, Anna Salai Chennai-600 002 2.The Chief Engineer Tamilnadu Electricity Board (TNGEDCO) No.144, Anna Salai Chennai-600 002 3.The Superintendent Engineer Virudhunagar Electricity Distribution Circle Virudhunagar District 4.The Executive Engineer Distribution, Rajapalayam Virudhunagar District ... Respondents

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to consider the appeal (mercy petition) dated 27.01.2025 in light of the administrative memo No. 209514/35/DP.1/S1/77-74, dated 03.04.1984.

For Petitioner :

Ms.Chamundi Bose For Respondents :

Mr.S.Arivalagan Standing Counsel

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to consider the appeal / mercy petition dated 27.01.2025 said to have been filed by the petitioner duly taking into consideration the administrative memo No.209514/35/DP.1/S1/77-74, dated 03.04.1984.

2. Heard Ms.Chamundi Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Arivalagan, learned Standing Counsel, who takes notice for the respondent - TANGEDCO.

3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was originally subjected to disciplinary proceedings resulting in imposition of a punishment of withholding of increment for a period of three years with cumulative effect and subsequently, on an appeal, the said punishment was modified as withholding of increment for three years without cumulative effect. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner appears to have filed a revision petition before the Revisional Authority and the said revision petition was also rejected by the Revisional Authority through proceedings bearing Letter No. 053614/855/G5/G5(1)/2015, dated 14.01.2016. It was thereafter the petitioner has not taken any steps either against the orders issued modifying the punishment through proceedings dated 07.02.2007 or against the proceedings dated 14.01.2026 for a period of one decade. However, on 27.01.2025, the petitioner claims to have filed a mercy petition before the first respondent requesting him to consider his case in the light of the administrative memo dated 03.04.1984.

4. From the above, it is evident that the petitioner has accepted the punishment of stoppage of increment for three years without cumulative effect imposed as early as in the year 2007 and it was only in the year 2013, the petitioner filed a review petition, which was rejected by the Revisional

Authority through proceedings dated 14.01.2016. After a lapse of ten years the petitioner filed a mercy petition. Admittedly, under the relevant rules, there is no provision providing for consideration of a mercy petition. In the absence of any rule or provision obligating the first respondent to consider the mercy petition, the question of this Court issuing a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to consider the so-called mercy petition does not arise.

5. Be that as it may, the said mercy petition is admittedly filed almost after a lapse of one decade and therefore, the question of this Court directing the first respondent to consider the same does not arise on the ground of delay and laches. In the said circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition.

6. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. 06.04.2026 NCC :

Yes / No Index :

Yes / No Internet :

Yes / No krk

MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.

krk 06.04.2026