IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on : 08.08.2022

Delivered on : 30.08.2022

CORAM:

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

W.P.Nos. 15090 & 15164 of 2021 and WMP.Nos. 15984,15986, 15987,16057,

16058 and 16060 of 2021

K.Radhakrishnan       ..Petitioner in W.P.No. 15090 of 2021

S.Santhi       ..Petitioner in W.P.No. 15164 of 2021

Vs.

1. Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited.,      represented by Chairman-cum- Managing Director,
2. The Secretary,

Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution

Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO)

3.The Chief Engineer /Distribution    Erode Division, Erode.

4.The Chief Engineer/Personnel

Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution

Corporation Limited

TANGEDCO

No.144, Anna Salai,

Chennai-600002.                       ..Respondents in W.P.No. 15090 of 2021

1. Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited., represented by Chairman-cum- Managing Director,

2.The Chief Engineer/Personnel

Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution

Corporation Limited

TANGEDCO

No.144, Anna Salai,    Chennai-600002.

3.The Chief Engineer /Distribution    Erode Division,    Erode.

4. The Superintending Engineer,

Mettur Electricity District Circle

Mettur – 1                ..Respondents in W.P.No. 15164 of 2021

5.The Chief Secretary to Government,   Government of Tamil Nadu.

6.The Secretary,

Human Resource Development Department,   Government of Tamil Nadu.

(R5 &R6 Suo Motu impleaded vide order   of this Court dated 21.06.2022)           ..Respondents 5 &6 in both WPs

Prayer in W.P.No. 15090 of 2021: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the third respondent in charge memo (Ku.AA) No. 0177501 513 / Nipi2 / Assistant 1 / Ko.O.Na / 2018 –  12 dated 06.05.2021 and quash the same and direct the first  Respondent to include the name of the petitioner in the appropriate place in the approved panel for promotion as  Executive Engineer for the year 2019-2020 issued by (Per) CMD TANGEDCO Proceedings No. 30 TANGEDCO dated 27.02.2020 and to  promote the petitioner with all consequential benefits within a limited time frame.

Prayer in W.P.No. 15164 of 2021: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 3rd respondent in Ku.No.017750 /513 / Ni Pi 2 / Assistant 1 / ko.O.Na /2018 -2011 dated 06/05/2021 and quash the same and direct the 2nd respondent to include the name of the petitioner in the appropriate place in the approved panel for promotion as Assistant Executive Engineer for the year 2011 -2012 issued by the 2nd respondent in Memo No.013019 /43 / G1 /G11 /2011 -108 dated 03/08/2012 and to promote the petitioner with all consequential benefits within a limited time frame.

For Petitioners          : Mr.M.Ravi

(in both WPs)

For Respondents       : Mr.P.Subramanian – R1 to R4

(in both WPs)       Mr.V.Arun, Addl.Advocate General- R5 & R6          Assisted by  Mr.T.Chezhiyan, AGP

COMMON ORDER

The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners were falsely implicated in a criminal case under Prevention of Corruption Act in the year 2009 along with other accused and after a period of nine years, the learned

Special Court for trial of cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Salem by judgement dated 29.08.2017 in Special C.C.No. 96/2014 was pleased to hold that these petitioners were not guilty  of the offences and exonerated of all the charges and acquitted from the criminal case. In view of the said acquittal, the petitioners approached the department to treat the prolonged suspension as duty period and grant consequential promotion to the higher poses on par with their juniors.  The 3^rd respondent had denied the said request made by the petitioners and initiated disciplinary proceedings on the very same set of facts and evidence as that of the said criminal case after the lapse of 11  years  and subsequently the respondent had appointed second enquiry officer after completion of the enquiry and cancelled the earlier charge memo dated 15.06.2019, for which two enquiry officers were appointed and issued a fresh  impugned charge memo dated 06.05.2021 on the very same set of allegations.  Challenging the same, the present writ petitions have been filed.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners were appointed as Technical Assistant in the respondent Board in the year 1998 and thereafter promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer in the year 2002. While serving as Assistant Engineers, a false criminal case was registered against the petitioners in Crime No. 8/AC/2008/SL under Section 120 B IPC r/w Sec 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and arrested on 13.09.2008.  Based on the said criminal case, the petitioners were placed under suspension by the department. Subsequently, the charge sheet was filed and the same was taken on file as Spl.C.C.No. 96/2014 on the file of the Special Court for Trial of cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Salem.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has further submitted that the said criminal case was ended after a period of nine years by judgment dated 29.08.2017 acquitting the petitioners herein as the petitioners were found not guilty of offences charged against the petitioners. The petitioners have made representations to the respondent- Board for regularisation of suspension period and consequential promotions to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer and Executive Engineer respectively with retrospective effect on par with their juniors, but no such orders have been passed till date.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the third respondent by proceedings dated 15.06.2019 had initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners on the very same set of charges initiated in the criminal case after the lapse of 11 years from the date of alleged occurrence and nearly after 2 years from the date of acquittal in the criminal case, which is unjust and illegal. Subsequently, after submission of enquiry report by the original enquiry officer, the respondents had appointed a second enquiry officer for enquiring the same charge.  Subsequently, the third respondent had issued another charge memo dated 06.05.2021 on the very same set of facts by cancelling the earlier charge memo dated 14.06.2019. Challenging the same, the present writ petitions have been filed.
5. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Board has filed Counter affidavit on behalf of the 3^rd & 4^th respondents and submitted that the petitioners were trapped and arrested by the officials of Vigilance & Anti Corruption for demanding illegal gratification of Rs.25,000/- by the petitioners herein which was reduced to Rs.10,000/- for effecting service connection to the Aluminium Utensils Manufacturing Unit situated at Karumalai Koodal Mettur Taluk. The charge sheet was filed under Section 7, 120(B) IPC r/w Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 before the Special Judge, Salem in Spl.C.C.No. 96/2014 and the acquittal order was passed on 29.08.2017.
6. The learned standing counsel has further submitted that though the order of acquittal was passed by the Special Court, it is open to the respondents to initiate departmental action against the petitioners with the ‘Preponderance of Probability’ is sufficient and accordingly appropriate

charges were framed by the 3^rd respondent vide Memo No. 017750/513/Adm2/A1/FDP/2018-2, dated 15.06.2019.  Subsequently the said charges were cancelled by the 3^rd respondent due to flaw in the procedure adopted earlier, without prejudice to the outcome of the nature of the lapses pending and contemplated afresh charges.  Subsequently, based on the Vigilance and Anti Corruption, revised and fresh charges were framed against the petitioner by the 3^rd respondent vide Memo dated 06.05.2021. Therefore, the same cannot be said to be inordinate and explained delay in initiation of proceedings as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner.  Accordingly, these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.

7. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
8. Admittedly, the writ petitioners were trapped and arrested by the officials of Vigilance and Anti-corruption on 13.09.2008 and registered a criminal case in Crime No. 8/AC/2008/SL under Section 120 (B) IPC r/w Sec 7 under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The writ petitioners were placed under suspension with effect from the date of arrest i.e 13.09.2008. The charge sheet was filed and the matter was taken on file as Spl.C.C.No.

96/2014 on the file of  Special Court for Trial of Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Salem.

9. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the criminal case was ended in acquittal on merits after nine years by judgment dated 29.08.2017. The petitioners were placed prolonged suspension and their names were omitted in the panel for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer for the year 2011-2012 and they were superseded by several juniors. The representations submitted by the petitioners for regularisation of suspension period as per Fundamental Rules and retrospective promotions was also not considered by the respondents. However, the respondent had initiated disciplinary proceedings after the lapse of 11 years from the date of alleged occurrence and nearly two years from the date of acquittal in the criminal case.
10. From the above submissions and perusal of the documents, the following points needs to be answered;
11. Whether the charges levelled against the petitioners in the criminal case and the disciplinary proceedings are the same or not?
12. The reason stated by the respondents for inordinate delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings after lapse of 11 years in valid or not?

• The reason stated by the 3^rd respondent for issuing the second charge memo dated 06.05.2021 cancelling the earlier charge memo dated 14.06.2019 is acceptable or not?

11. A careful perusal of charges framed in the Criminal Court in Spl C.C.No. 96 of 2014 and in the disciplinary proceedings clearly reveals that both the charges are same. The charges are extracted hereunder;

Fw;wr;rhl;L (1) jpUkjp  rhe;jp cjtpg; bghwpahsh; Kd;dhs; 110 fp/nth/ Jiz kpd;epiyak;- nkl;Lh; Mh;/v jw;nghJ 110 fp/nth Jiz kpd;epiyak;-e’f;ts;sp-nkl;LhP;; kpd; gfphk;hd tll; k; 1 nkl;Lh; mthf; s;/ jpU/

M.rPdpthrd;. J-bg/ khzpff;k;/ 15-21 rpd;dg;gft[zl;h; bjU fUkiyf;Tly;. nkl;Lh; tll; k;. khtl;lk; vd;w Kfthpapy; trpj;J tUk; gf[hh;jhuhpd; fUkiyf;Tly; gFjpapy; Vw;fdnt 15 HP  kpd;gSt[ld; ,a’;fp tUk; mYkpdpak; ghj;jpu’f; s; jahhpfF;k; bjhHpw;rhiyfF; TLjyhf 15 HP (Additional Load) kpd;gS eltofi;f nkw;bfhs;s jh’f; s; 09/9/2008k; njjp gf[hh;jhuupd; bjhHpw;rhiyf;F brd;W fhiy Rkhh; 9/00 kzpf;F jpU

K.uhjhfpUc;zd;. cjtp braw;bghwpahsh; mthf; s; gzk; th’f;p tur; brhyy;pajhf bjhptpj;J U:/15000- ifa{ll;hf nfhhpa[s;sPhf; s;/ 12/09/2008k; njjp nkYk; U:/3.500-I MRT

gphptpw;f;F bfhLff; ntzL;k; vd;W ifa{l;L nfhhp bgw;Ws;sPhf; s;/

mYtyhpd; ,r;bray; jkpHe;hL kpd; cw;gj;jp kw;Wk; gfphk;hdf; fHfk; ed;dlji;j tpjp 3(a) & (e) d;go jtwhd kw;Wk; xG’;fPdkhd brayhFk;/

Fw;wr;rhl;L (2) jpUkjp rhe;jp cjtpg;bghwpahsh; Kd;dh; 110 fp/nth Jiz kpd; epiyak; nkl;Lh:; Mh;/v jw;nghJ 110 fp/nth Jid kpd;epiyak;/ e’f; ts;sp nkl;Lh:; kpd; gfphk;hd tl;lk;- nkl;Lh:; mthf; s; 13/09/2008k; njjp fhiy 11/00 kzpfF; gf[hh;jhuuhfpa jpU M. rPdpthrd; j/bg/ khzpff;k; mthf; splk; ,Ue;J ifa{l;lhf nfhhpa U 13.500- cs;s fthpid j’;fspd; nkir kPJ itj;Js;sPhf; s; gpwF mef; f; fthpid jpU

P.N.ee;jf;Fkhh;. j-bg/ eluhrd;. ,sepiy bghwpahsh;

,uz;lhk; epiy (Operator) 110-11 KV Jid kpd; epiyak;-nkl;L:h; mthf; splk; bfhLj;J jpU

K.uhjhfpUc;zd; cjtp braw;bghwpahsh; mthf; splk; xg;gilf;FkhW bjhptpj;Js;sPhf; s;/ mYtyhpd; ,r;bray; jkpHe;hL kpd; cw;gj;jp kw;Wk; gfphk;hdf; fHfk; ed;dlji;j tpjp 3(a) & (e) d;go jtwhd kw;Wk; xG’;fPdkhd brayhFk;/

Fw;wr;rhl;L (3) jpUkjp rhe;jp cjtpg;bghwpahsh; Kd;dh; 110 fp/nth Jiz kpd; epiyak; nkl;Lh:; Mh;/v jw;nghJ 110 fp/nth Jid kpd;epiyak;/ e’f; ts;sp nkl;Lh:; kpd; gfphk;hd tl;lk;- nkl;Lh:; mthf; s; jdJ gphptpw;f;F cl;gl;l fUkiyf;Tly;    j-bg/ khzpff; k;. mthf; spd; bjhHpw;rhiyf;F Tljyhf ghj;jpu’;fs; tH’;Ftjw;fhf. tpz;zg;gpj;j HP kpd;gS tpz;zg;gj;jpd; kPJ thhpa tpjp KiwfF; Vw;g eltofi;f vLj;jplhky;. JpU  rPdpthrd; j.-bg khzpff; k; mthf; splk; jdfF; mspff; g;glL;s;s thhpag;gzp nkw;bfhs;s ifa{l;L nfhhpas;s ehzakw;w brayhy; kpd; gadP;l;lhshf; s; kj;jpapy; fHfj;jpw;F mtgb;gah; Vw;gLk;go ele;Js;sPhf; s;.

mYtyhpd; ,r;bray; jkpHe;hL kpd; cw;gj;jp kw;Wk; gfphk;hdf; fHfk; ed;dlji;j tpjp 3(a) & (e) d;go jtwhd kw;Wk; xG’;fPdkhd brayhFk;/

12. In this context, it is relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G.M.Tank Vs.State of Gujarat & another reported in TLNJ 2006(3) 457 (Civil) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if such facts and evidence in the department as well as criminal proceedings were the same without there being any iota of difference, the appellant should succeed. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder;
13. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents are not distinguishable on facts and on law. In this case, the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in a Departmental case against the appellant and the charge before the Criminal Court are one and the same. It is true that the nature of charge in the departmental proceedings and in the criminal case is grave. 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 his judicial pronouncement with the finding that the charge has not been proved. It is also to be noticed the judicial pronouncement was made after a regular trial and on hot contest. Under these circumstances, it would be unjust and unfair and rather oppressive to allow the findings recorded in the departmental proceedings to stand.

 

31. In our opinion, such facts and evidence in the department as well as criminal proceedings were the same without there being any iota of difference, the appellant should succeed. The distinction which is usually proved between the departmental and criminal proceedings on the basis of the approach and burden of proof would not be applicable in the instant case. Though finding recorded in the domestic enquiry was found to be valid by the Courts below, when there was an honourable acquittal of the employee during the pendency of the proceedings challenging the dismissal, the same requires to be taken note of and the decision in Paul Anthony’s case (supra) will apply. We,therefore, hold that the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed.
32. In the case on hand, the criminal Court after detailed examination of witnesses as PW 1 to PW17 and documents as Ex.P1 to P37 including the witnesses and documents mentioned in the second charge memo dated 16.05.2021, has arrived at conclusion that the accused 1 & 2/petitioners herein are not found guilt of any of the offences and acquitted from all the offences charged against the petitioners.
33. Inordinate delay in initiating Disciplinary Proceedings:

In the instant case, the 3^rd respondent had issued charge memo on

14.06.2019 and initiated disciplinary proceedings on the very same set of facts and evidence after the lapse of 11  years from the date of occurrence and

nearly two years from the date of acquittal in the criminal case. The 3^rd respondent ought to have levelled all the charges against the petitioner at the same time. The delay in initiating and proceeding with the departmental proceedings prejudicially affects the delinquent employees. Further, in the counter affidavit filed by the 3^rd & 4^th respondents, no valid reasons are mentioned for the inordinate delay of 11 years in commencing the

disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners.

• Since the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that there cannot be inordinate delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings, which has also been followed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, as stated above, is squarely applicable to the facts of the case on hand, where the disciplinary proceedings were initiated after 11 years of framing charges for receipt bribe.
• In this context, it is pertinent to rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Noida Entrepreneurs Association vs. Noida and others reported in 2007 (5) AIC 37 as well as the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Boopathy vs. Unioin of India (W.P.No.26664 of 2014 dated 01.04.2015), wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court at paragraph No.17 held as follows:-

“17. In the above said facts and circumstances, it can be very well said that the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings by the issuance of the Charge Memo dated 18.12.2013 shall cause serious prejudice to the petitioner leading to miscarriage of justice. Delay of more than 16 years, a considerable part of which has not been satisfactory explained, will result in serious prejudice to the petitioner leading to miscarriage of justice. Hence we are inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner. In this regard, the Tribunal seems to have misguided itself in appreciating and applying the instructions given in the Compendium on Postal Complaints, 1998. We are unable to agree with the reasons assigned by the Tribunal for the dismissal of the Original Application. We are of the considered view that the case on hand is a fit one for quashing the departmental proceedings.”

15. It is well settled proposition of law that an employer can conduct a parallel departmental enquiry during the pendency of trial in the criminal case with respect to the same set of charges. The employer is well within his right to do so.  However, whether the employer will be justified in initiating departmental proceedings is to be examined.  In the present case, the respondent had initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner on the very same set of charges after 11 years from the date of alleged occurrence and after 2 years from the date of acquittal in the criminal case.
16. In the present case on hand, the 3^rd respondent had initiated disciplinary proceedings by charge memo dated 14.06.2019. The enquiry officer has submitted his report, but the respondents had appointed a second enquiry officer to enquire the same charge after completion of the enquiry by the original enquriy officer and submission of his enquiry report, by impugned proceedings dated 06.05.2021 and cancelled the earlier charge memo dated 14.06.2019.
17. The learned counsel for the respondent has stated that based on the report dated 26.08.2020 received from the DV & AC that the ‘bribe amount was recovered in tact during the trap proceedings’, the impugned fresh charge memo is issued. But a perusal of the impugned second charge memo clearly reveals that except addition of six witnesses, there is no apparent difference between the first charge memo dated 14.06.2019 and the second charge memo dated 06.05.2021.
18. In this Context, this Court in P.No. 10412 of 2020 dated

27.04.2022 in the case of K.Radhakrishnan Vs. The District Collector, Perambalur held in detail with regard to the Inordinate delay and initiation of second enquriy.  The relevant paragraphs are as follows;

“12. Second enquiry:

• The purpose of holding an enquiry against any person is not only with a view to establish the charges levelled against him or to impose an penalty, but is also conducted with the object of such an enquiry recording the truth of the matter, and in that sense, the outcome of an enquiry may either result in establishing or vindicating his stand, and hence result in his exoneration. Therefore, fair action on the part of the authority concerned is a paramount necessity.
• In the case of Anant R.Kulkarni Vs. Y.E.Education

Society and Others , reported in (2013) 6 SCC 515, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had discussed the facts to be considered in holding de-novo enquiry/second enquiry and when permissible and warranted. In paragraph nos. 31, 32, 34 & 35 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows;

31.   The conclusion reached by the Division

Bench that the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge had found that there was a defect in the manner in which the enquiry was held, and therefore there was no question of it recording a finding on merit to the effect that charges levelled against the appellant were not proved, is also not sustainable in law. It is always open for the Court in such a case, to examine the case on merits as well, and in case the Court comes to the conclusion that there was infact, no substance in the allegations, it may not permit the employer to hold a fresh enquiry. Such a course may be necessary to save the employee from harassment and humiliation.

 

32. In the instant case, there is no allegation of misappropriation/embezzlement or any charge which may cast a doubt upon the integrity of the appellant, or further, anything which may indicate even the slightest moral turpitude on the part of the appellant. The charges relate to accounts and to the discharge of his functions as the Headmaster of the school. The appellant has provided satisfactory explanation for each of the allegations levelled against him. Moreover, he has retired in the year 2002. The question of holding any fresh enquiry on such vague charges is therefore, unwarranted and uncalled for.

…..

…..

 

34. We may add that the court has not been apprised of any rule that may confer any statutory power on the management to hold a fresh enquiry after the retirement of an employee. In the absence of any such authority, the Division Bench has erred in creating a post-retirement forum that may not be permissible under law.

 

35. In light of the facts and circumstances of the case, none of the charges are specific and precise. The charges have not been accompanied by any statement of allegations, or any details thereof. It is not therefore permissible, for the respondents to hold an enquiry on such charges. Moreover, it is a settled legal proposition that a departmental enquiry can be quashed on the ground of delay provided the charges are not very grave.

 

36. In the facts and circumstances of the case, as the Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge have examined all the charges on merit and also found that the enquiry has not been conducted as per the Rules 1981, it was not the cause of the Management Committee which had been prejudiced, rather it had been the other way around. In such a fact-situation, it was not necessary for the Division Bench to permit the respondents to hold a fresh enquiry on the said charges and that too, after more than a decade of the retirement of the appellant.
37. In view of the above, appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court is modified to the extent referred to herein above. The appellant shall be entitled to recover all his salary and retirement dues, if not paid already. No costs.

12.3 In the present case, as discussed above, the Criminal Court after detailed examination of witnesses including DVAC officials who are PW10 to PW14 and the documents marked by them on merit, has come to the conclusion that the charges are not proved and the allegations of receiving bribe was not established by their own witnesses and documents.  The enquiry officer has also held that the charges are not proved, hence the initiation of second enquiry on the basis that the enquriy officer has not examined DVAC official,  during enquiry, cannot be accepted.”

• In the present case also, on perusal of the judgment passed by the Criminal Court in Spl. C.C.No.96 of 2014, it is stated that the deceased accused Mathaiyan visited Aruna Metal Industries and demanded a sum of Rs.25,000/- from the defacto complainant in the present of defacto complainant’s father  as illegal gratification for him self and for the AEE and EE/petitioners herein.  When the defacto complainant expressed his inability to pay the amount, the deceased Mathaiyan demanded Rs.15,000/- as initial payment for AEE and EE at the first instance and the balance amount to be paid to him later.  Based on the said complaint, Vigilance and Anti Corruption has registered a complaint against the petitioners and pending investigation, the said Mathiyan who was arrayed as accused no.3 in the FIR died on 20.05.2009.
• The trial Court after detailed examination of witnesses as PW 1 to PW17 and documents as Ex.P1 to P37 including the witnesses and documents mentioned in the second charge memo dated 16.05.2021, has arrived at conclusion that the accused 1 & 2/petitioners herein are not found guilt of any of the offences and acquitted from all the offences charged against the petitioners.
  19. It is clear from the records that without any concrete reasons, the 3^rd respondent has issued the impugned second charge memo dated 06.05.2021, initiating second enquiry, which is also not permissible in the light of the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court cited supra in Anant R.Kulkarni’ Case, therefore, this Court with no hesitation has come to the conclusion that holding of fresh enquiry by the 3^rd respondent is untenable and the same is unwarranted and the impugned charge memo dated 06.05.2021 is liable to be set aside.
  20. Further, considering the gravity of offence, which was not proved by both the Criminal Court as well as the enquiry officer, this Court with no hesitation to draw adverse inference, only with a view to drag on the departmental proceedings, the 3^rd respondent had issued the impugned charge memo dated 06.05.2021 by cancelling the earlier charge memo dated 14.06.2019 after a period of 13 years from the date of alleged occurrence and after the lapse of 4 years from the petitioner’s acquittal in the criminal case on the very same facts, hence there is an inordinate delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings despite there is no bar for the respondent Board to proceed simultaneously with the departmental  proceedings, which cannot be accepted in view of the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court cited supra in Noida Entrepreneurs Association’s Case & G.M.Tank’s case respectively and liable to be quashed.
  21. In view of the foregoing discussions and accepting the contentions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the second impugned charge memo 06.05.2021 issued by the third respondent is quashed and the writ petitions are allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. The respondents are directed to grant notional promotions to the petitioners as Executive Engineer and Assistant Executive Engineer respectively with all consequential benefits except back wages, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
  22. Before parting with the order, since there was no clear guidelines to conclude the disciplinary proceedings by the authorities concerned and considering the number of writ petitions that are pending and being filed before this Court by the aggrieved employees for the inordinate delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings by the authorities concerned and for revocation of prolonged suspension, this Court in order to resolve this issue, has directed the Government to frame comprehensive guidelines, so as to enable the disciplinary authority to act upon in a time frame in the disciplinary cases as well as to reconsider for revocation of suspension of the employees.
  23. As directed, the 1^st respondent/ Chairman-cum-Managing Director,

TANGEDCO has also addressed the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Energy (B2) Department, Chennai seeking clarification/ guidelines with regard to the revocation of suspension of employees placed under suspension based on the trap & arrest made by the DV&AC.

25. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the Chief Secretary to Government, who has been impleaded by this Court suo-motu has taken timely action and issued compendium of instructions in G.O.(Ms).No. 81, Human Resources Management (N) Department, dated 04.08.2022 and framed guidelines by fixing time limit for finalisation of disciplinary proceedings and in the cases of review of suspension pending enquiry into grave charges in disciplinary cases. Specific direction has also been issued in the said G.O, to follow the guidelines/time limit prescribed, without any deviation, failing which severe action will be taken against the officials responsible for their lapses.
26. This Court appreciates the Chief Secretary to Government for the timely action in issuing the revised guidelines and also the learned Law Officers who rendered assistance to this Court in this regard.

30.08.2022

Index: Yes/No

Internet : Yes

Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order.

ak

To

1. The Chairman-cum- Managing Director,

Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution

Corporation Limited.,

2. The Secretary,

Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution

Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO)

3.The Chief Engineer /Distribution    Erode Division,  Erode.

4.The Chief Engineer/Personnel

Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution

Corporation Limited     TANGEDCO,   No.144, Anna Salai,

Chennai-600002.

5. The Superintending Engineer,

Mettur Electricity District Circle

Mettur – 1

6.The Chief Secretary to Government,   Government of Tamil Nadu.    For St. George, Chennai.

7.The Secretary,

Human Resource Development Department,    For St. George, Chennai.

D.KRISHNAKUMAR. J

ak

W.P.Nos. 15090 & 15164 of 2021 and WMP.Nos. 15984,15986, 15987,16057, 16058 and 16060 of 2021

30.08.2022