IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 20.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

and

W.M.P.Nos.18751 & 18752 of 2024

R.Balaji …. Petitioner

Vs

1.The Chairman-cum-Managing Director

TANGEDCO, NPKRR Maaligai,

No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai- 600 002.

2.The Chief Engineer (Personnel) TANGEDCO, NPKRR Maaligai,

No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai- 600 002.

3.The Superintendent Engineer CEDC/ South -1/ TANGEDCO,

110 KV SS Complex, K.K. Nagar,

Chennai- 600 078. …. Respondents

Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the impugned order of departmental proceeding in Memo Ku. Aa. No. 422-1/May.Po/Semipava/ The-I/Nip./U3/KO.O.No./2022, Dated 07.04.2022 passed by the 3^rd Respondent, and quash the same, and direct the Respondents to allow the Petitioner retire from service on attaining age of superannuation and give all

terminal benefits including regular pension.

For Petitioners : Mr.P.Ganesan for Mr.M.Sasikumar For R1 to R3 : Mr.David Sunder Singh Standing Counsel

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the departmental proceeding dated 07.04.2022 initiated by the third respondent.

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

3. The co-accused had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.No.16856 of 2022 and this Court, by order dated 05.04.2024, considered the same and passed the following order :

“6. It is a settled proposition of law that for the same set of charges, both the departmental enquiry, as well as the criminal proceedings, can be conducted parallely. The reasoning behind this legal ratio is that when a trial for a criminal offence is conducted, it should be in accordance with the proof of the offence as per the evidence defined under the provisions of the Evidence Act. Converse is the case of a departmental enquiry, where the preponderance of probabilities that a delinquent could have committed a misconduct would be sufficient to hold the charges as proved. However, when the charges in both the criminal case, as well as in the departmental enquiry, are one and the same and the witnesses and other documentary evidences in the criminal case and the departmental enquiry are one and the same and the Criminal Court acquits the employee after due consideration of the evidences put forth against him in a regular trial, an exception is made for continuance of the departmental enquiry, after the judgment of acquittal. This ratio has been laid down in several decisions, including the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.M.Tank Vs. State of Gujarat & Another reported in (2006) 5 SCC 446. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:

“30..... The nature of the case launched against the appellant on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during enquiry and investigation and as reflected in the charge-sheet, factors mentioned are one and the same. In other words, charges, evidence, witnesses and circumstances are one and the same. In the present case, criminal and departmental proceedings have already noticed or granted on the same set of facts, namely, raid conducted at the appellant's residence, recovery of articles therefrom. The Investigating Officer Mr V.B. Raval and other departmental witnesses were the only witnesses examined by the enquiry officer who by relying upon their statement came to the conclusion that the charges were established against the appellant. The same witnesses were examined in the criminal case and the criminal court on the examination came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the guilt alleged against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellant by its judicial pronouncement with the finding that the charge has not been proved. It is also to be noticed that the judicial pronouncement was made after a regular trial and on hot contest. Under these circumstances, it