W.P.(MD) No.2535 of 2022

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 08.02.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

W.P.(MD) No.2535 of 2022

Shaji

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation,

Rep.by its Chief Engineer/Personnel,

8^th Floor, NPKRR Maligai,

No.144, Anna Salai,

Chennai-600 002.

2.The Superintendent Engineer,

Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation,

Nagercoil,

Kanyakumari District.

3.The Executive Engineer,

TANGEDCO-Distribution,

Kuzhithurai,

Kaniyakumari District.

... Respondents

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st

respondent to give promotion to the petitioner as Revenue Supervisor

based on the seniority list (Letter No.010422/80/G.25/G.252/2021-1)

dated 19.02.2021 and also the petitioner's representation dated

22.12.2021.

For Petitioner

:

Mr.Ananth C.Rajesh

For Respondent

:

Mr.S.Arivalagan

O R D E R

The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct

the first respondent to give promotion to the petitioner as Revenue

Supervisor, based on the seniority list dated 19.02.2021 and also

consider the representation submitted by the petitioner on

22.12.2021.

_________

Page 1 of 4

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

W.P.(MD) No.2535 of 2022

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended

that the promotional opportunity of the writ petitioner has been

stopped wantonly at the instance of the officials by framing

charges. The name of the petitioner was included in the seniority

list for promotion to the post of Revenue Supervisor. When the

petitioner was waiting for promotion, a charge memo was issued on

28.06.2021. The petitioner has made a request to the Authorities to

furnish the documents enabling him to submit his explanation and

without furnishing the documents, the Authorities have appointed the

Enquiry Officer. Therefore, framing of the charge memo itself is

with a motive to deny the promotion to the post of Revenue

Supervisor. In this regard, the petitioner submitted a

representation which is yet to be considered by the authorities.

Thus, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondents/TANGEDCO objected the said contentions by stating that

the charge memo was issued based on the materials available on

record and the petitioner is not co-operating for conducing of

enquiry. Contrarily, he is attempting to prolong and protract the

enquiry proceedings by unnecessarily seeking documents which he will

get to peruse at the time of enquiry. Once a charge memo has been

issued, the employee is not eligible for promotion till the

disciplinary proceedings are concluded as per the Board Proceedings

and the rules in-force. Thus, the writ petitioner is not entitled

for any relief.

4.(i) Mere inclusion of name of an employee in the Seniority

List would not confer any right for promotion.

(ii) Promotion can never be claimed as a matter of right and

all promotions are to be granted strictly in accordance with Rules

in-force.

(iii)pending of a charge memo is a bar for promotion as the

Charge memo is considered as a demerit for promotion.

(iv)In the event of exemption from the charge memo, then the

case of the employee is to be considered on merits and based on the

seniority.

The above principles being settled, the Authorities Competent are

bound to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion after

disposal of the disciplinary proceedings pending against the

petitioner.

5.Charge memo contains allegations. The petitioner is bound to

defend his case in the manner known to law. By merely asking the

Authorities to produce the documents, he cannot prolong and protract

the disciplinary proceedi