Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
G.Radha - Appellant
Versus
The Superintending Engineer, Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle (North), Chennai and Ors - Respondent
W.P. No. 36459 of 2004, 33223 of 2007 and W.M.P. No. 43785 of 2004, 1 of 2007
Decided On : 30-03-2021
Tamil Nadu Electricity - Charge memo - Retirement - Pensionary benefits - Seeking direction to respondents to release retirement and pensionable benefits, petitioner has filed second Writ Petition, ithat is how, both these Writ Petitions were filed by petitioner - Petitioner was working as Line Inspector at respondents organization, i.e., erstwhile Tamil Nadu Electricity Board presently TANGEDCO. While so, a disciplinary proceedings was initiated against petitioner by issuance of charge memo - Held, once employee - employer relationship severed by virtue of clear permission given by employer to employee to retire from service without retaining his or her service for purpose of disciplinary proceedings which was already initiated and pending on date of superannuation, natural corollary would be that, employer would lose chance of continuing disciplinary proceedings against such employee and in that case, whatever be retiremental or remaining benefits including pensionable benefits payable to employee shall be calculated and be paid or disbursed - Once impugned charge memo become ineffective and it cannot be proceeded further against petitioner, automatically petitioner shall be entitled to get retirement benefits including pensionable benefits, if any, payable to the petitioner. Therefore Court feels that prayer sought for by petitioner in both the Writ Petitions can be accepted - Writ Petitions dispose of
ORDER :
1. Since the issue raised in both the Writ Petitions is by the same petitioner which are interconnected, therefore, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for both sides, both the Writ Petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The petitioner was working as Line Inspector at the respondents organization, i.e., erstwhile Tamil Nadu Electricity Board presently TANGEDCO. While so, a disciplinary proceedings was initiated against the petitioner by issuance of charge memo dated 16.07.2004. The said charge memo has been challenged in the Writ Petition in W.P. No. 36459 of 2004. While the said Writ Petition was pending, the petitioner reached superannuation by 31.08.2007, accordingly, the petitioner was permitted to retire from service without any remarks. In this context, it is to be noted that, the respondents TANGEDCO issued a relieving report by 31.08.2007 with following effect:
TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD
RELEIVING REPORT
| 1. Name of the employee | G.Radha L.I |
| 2. Designation | Line Inspector |
| 3. Headquarters | Gummidipoondi |
| 4. Section | JE/Mtc/110/33-11 kv SSI/GPI |
| 5. Sub Division | AEE/D&M/GRP |
| 6.Division | EE/O&M/PONERI |
| 7. Reference to (1) CE's orders |
|
| (2) EE's order | Memo No.6098/AADO/Adm/A2 F.Superannuation / 07 dated 31.08.2007 |
| 8. Date of relief (FN or AN to be specifically noted) | 31.08.2007 a.n. |
| 9. Retirement | On 31.08.2007 |
| Transfer (a) in the same cadre |
|
| (b) on promotion |
|
| 10. Proceeding on / returning from : leave (with nature of leave) |
|
| 11. Section from which transferred in the case of transfer on appointment or promotion |
|
| 12. Character |
|
| 13. Signature of the employee | sd/- G.Radha |
3. Though the petitioner was retired peacefully on attaining superannuation on 31.08.2007, his retirement and pensionable benefits has not been disbursed or released by the respondents. Therefore, seeking for a mandamus to give a direction to the respondents to release the retirement and pensionable benefits, the petitioner has filed the second Writ Petition, i.e., W.P. No. 33223 of 2007, that is how, both these Writ Petitions were filed by the petitioner with the respective prayers as aforesaid.
4. Heard Mr.S.Elamurugan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner who would submit that, no doubt, the disciplinary proceedings was initiated against the petitioner, where, charge memo dated 16.07.2004 was issued, in response to the same, the petitioner has also given explanation, but pursuant to the explanation, since the charge memo was not dropped and was proceeded to conduct an enquiry, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the Writ Petition in W.P. No. 36459 of 2004 challenging the very charge memo itself and during the pendency of the Writ Petition, where, disciplinary proceedings were not conducted or proceeded further or could not be completed, the petitioner reached superannuation on 31.08.2007 and on that day, the petitioner had been permitted to retire from service peacefully without any remarks and in this regard, the relieving report as referred above has also been issued by the respondents.
5. Having permitted the petitioner to retire from service peacefully and a relieving report to that effect since has been issued by the respondents, the retiral benefits payable to the petitioner should have also been calculated and paid, however, since the same has not been paid and it has been with held by the petitioner, the petitioner has filed the second Writ Petition.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further contend that, there could be no clutch on the petitioner by the respondents and hence, they cannot further proceed with the charge memo dated 16.07.2004, based on which, the respondents cannot impose any punishment on the petiti
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
