BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.09.2022 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY W.P.(MD)No.16706 of 2015 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 to 3 of 2015 R.Gurusamy ... Petitioner vs.

1.The Chief Engineer Personnel, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, No.144, Annasalai, NPKRR Maligai, Chennai – 600 002.

2.The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Dindigul Electricity Distribution Circle, Dindigul. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in pursuant to the impugned order passed by the 2^nd respondent in Ku.Aa.No.

022944/348/Ni.Pi3/Ni U2/Ko. Thani/2012-18, dated 15.06.2013 and to quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as Foreman Grade-I, when the petitioner's immediate junior has been promoted and to grant all attendant and monetary benefits to the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Saravanakumar For Respondents : Mr.S.Arivalagan *****

O R D E R

This writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order passed by the 2^nd respondent in Ku.Aa.No. 022944/ 348/Ni.Pi3/Ni U2/Ko. Thani/2012-18, dated 15.06.2013 and consequently to direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as Foreman Grade-I, when the petitioner's immediate junior has been promoted and to grant all attendant and monetary benefits to the petitioner.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Helper in the year 1996 and subsequently, promoted as Wireman on 31.03.2003 and posted at Kodaikkanal. A charge memo, dated 15.11.2012, was issued alleging that the petitioner has received amount to effecting new service connection. Along with the petitioner, Assistant Engineer, other two Foreman, Commercial Assistant and Field Assistant were also alleged to have received amount for effecting service connection. Thereafter, an enquiry officer was appointed and the enquiry officer submitted his report, wherein the charges levelled against the petitioner was held not proved. Based on the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer, the 2^nd respondent being the disciplinary authority has dropped the entire charges, vide proceedings, dated 26.04.2013. Subsequently, the 2^nd respondent, vide impugned proceedings, dated 15.06.2013 had stated that the charges dropped, vide proceedings, dated 26.04.2013 is cancelled and it was ordered to re-open the enquiry.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that the alleged delinquency took place in the year 2006, the charge memo was issued in the year 2012 and there is delay in initiating the enquiry proceedings itself. Now, the respondents subsequently have concluded that the charges levelled are not proved and dropped the proceedings through an order. Thereafter, the charge has been reopened. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned memo since the petitioner's name was not included in the panel issued by the 2^nd respondent in proceedings, dated 07.02.2014 for promotion to the post of Foreman Grade-1. Since the petitioner's juniors were included in the above panel, the petitioner is aggrieved by such proceedings.

4. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit stating that after the dropping of the charge memo, the enquiry report was submitted to Vigilance and Anti Corruption (Investigation Authority) and to the Secretary to Government, Energy (B2) Department, Chennai. After scrutiny, the Government in letter, dated 20.06.2013, has requested the authority to initiate the departmental enquiries on parallel to the enquiries conducted by the Investigating Authority. In the said proceedings it is stated that the disciplinary authority ought to have submitted the draft charge memo to the Vigilance authority, obtained the opinion and thereafter ought to have