BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Date of Reserving the Order Date of Pronouncing the Order

24.11.2025 23.01.2026 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU W.P.(MD) No.25485 of 2025 & WMP.(MD).No.19962 of 2025 R.Savariraj ... Petitioner -vs-

The Superintending Engineer, Dindigul Electricity Distribution Circle, TANGEDCO, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District. ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned belated Charge Memo in Memorandum F/vz;/nk/bgh/rpkpgt/rpt/epm/epgp3/c/1/ nfh/flL; /2024. dated 28.02.2025 on the file of the respondent and quash the same as illegal and pass such further or other orders.

For Petitioner : Mr.I.Pinaygash For Respondents : Mr.B.Ramanathan Standing counsel

O R D E R

This Writ Petition had been filed to quash the impugned belated Charge Memo, dated 28.02.2025 as illegal.

2. Heard Mr.I.Pinaygash, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.B.Ramanathan, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had initially joined as a Technical Assistant and thereafter, was promoted as Junior Engineer in the year 1998 and as Assistant Engineer in the year 2002 and presently working as Assistant Engineer at Arasanoor sub-station, in Sivagangai District. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further submit that a criminal case in Crime No.10 of 2009 under Section 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), was filed against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner had demanded illegal gratification for transfer of name in the electricity connection, which has already been taken on file as Spl.C.C.No.48 of 2014, in which the petitioner was acquitted on 10.07.2023. Thereafter, a charge memo had been issued on 28.02.2025 on the very same allegations for which a criminal case was proceeded against him, where the petitioner was discharged.

4. He would further submit that the charge memo had been issued belatedly after 16 years on allegation of which the petitioner had already been acquitted by the Criminal Court after full trial. The said disciplinary proceedings is also barred by the Board Proceedings of the year 1987, which envisages that the disciplinary proceedings should be initiated within a period of 180 days. He would also refer to the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Division Bench of this Court in support of his contentions.

5. Countering his arguments, the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner had involved himself in a heinous offence of corruption and his acquittal was only on giving a benefit of doubt and was not an honourable acquittal. He would further submit that the disciplinary proceedings operated on a different platform than that of the criminal proceedings. He would submit that in the criminal proceedings strict proof to the offence committed would have to be made, but on the other hand in a department, probability of delinquency is alone sufficient to impose a punishment. Hence, he would submit that the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be pressed into service. Therefore, he would submit that there is no infirmity or illegality in the issuance of the charge memo, impugned in the Writ Petition and prays this Court to dismiss the Writ Petition.

6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

7. The petitioner, who had working as an Assistant Engineer, had been slapped with a charge memo for a delinquency that he is alleged to have committed in demanding and receiving illegal gratification in the year 2009. It is also not disputed that the petitioner was proceeded with in a criminal Court for offence under th