Madras High Court
D. Venkatesan vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 3 December, 2007
Author: K. Chandru
Bench: K. Chandru
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 03..12..2007 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRU Writ Petition Nos. 36488 of 2005 and 34533 of 2007 and W.P.M.P. No. 39276 of 2005 in W.P. No. 36433 of 2005 and M.P. No. 1 of 2007 in W.P. No. 34533 of 2007 D. Venkatesan .. Petitioner in both W.Ps. Vs. 1. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Rep. by its Chairman 800 Anna Salai Chennai 2 2. The Chief Engineer Office of the Chief Engineer Distribution Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Vellore Region Vellore 3. The Superintending Engineer Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Dharmapuri Electricity Distribution Circle Dharmapuri .. Respondents in both W.Ps. Prayer: Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the third respondent in connection with the Memo. Ku. Pa. No. 4341/77/Na 5/ Vu. 1 / Ko. O.Na. No. 93-3/Vi.Pa.Ku/05 dated 09.02.2005 and the order of the second respondent in Memo No. 012429/447/ Nir.Aa/Vu2/2005 dated 12.7.2005 and quash the same and for issuance of writ of Mandamus directing the Superintending Engineer to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 05.7.2007 for the candidature for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer in Dharmapuri District. For Petitioner : Mr. M.D. Thirunavukkarasu For Respondents : Mrs. Yamuna Devi - - - C O M M O N O R D E R
The petitioner in both the writ petitions is the same person. In the first writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 12.7.2005 by which his appeal made to the Chief Engineer - Distribution, Vellore was rejected and the punishment order given by the Superintending Engineer, Dharmapuri, dated 09.02.2005 was confirmed. The third respondent Superintending Engineer, by his order dated 09.02.2005, imposed a punishment of postponement of increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect.
2. The charge against the petitioner was that he received a loan of Rs. 1,70,000/- from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board [for short, 'Board'] as House Building Advance for purchasing a House Board flat along with a built in structure. The said property was also mortgaged with the Board until the entire repayment of the loan. The petitioner, after obtaining the House Building Advance, without informing the Board, constructed a shopping complex and made elaborate changes in the house building five shops. He had also obtained five electricity connections to these five shops and enquiry was conducted against him and it was held that all the four charges have been proved against him. It is on the basis of this report, the petitioner was imposed with a minor punishment and also recovery of the entire loan amount along with the interest was sought to be made against him. The petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P. No. 15742 of 2005 and this Court did not interfere with the punishment but directed to file an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority, by an order dated 12.7.2005, which is impugned in this writ petition, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the punishment imposed by the Superintending Engineer, Dharmapuri.
3. In the second writ petition, the petitioner seeks for a direction to the Superintending Engineer, Dharmapuri, to consider his representation dated 05.7.2007 for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer.
4. Both the writ petitions were heard together. Heard the arguments of Mr. M.D. Thirunavukkarasu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. Yamuna Devi, learned counsel representing the respondents, and perused the records.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the loan transaction is only contractual and if there is any deviation, all that the respondents can do is to foreclose the loan and recover the same and the petitioner has no objection for recovering the entire loan amount. Therefore, there is no scope for conducting any disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner.
6. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that violating the terms of House Building Advance loan will not attract any disciplinary action is only stated to be rejected. Even the terms under which the petitioner has availed loan clearly shows that he is under obligation to inform the Board any change in the structure as the entire property is pledged with the Board till the realisation of the entire loan. Therefore, this cannot be condoned as a mere loan transaction. Further, even though the charges are serious, the respondents themselves have imposed only minor penalty and in view of the same, there is no case for interfering with the punishment imposed on the petitioner and accordingly, W.P. No. 36488 of 2005 stands dismissed. Since the petitioner had obtained stay of the impugned punishment, he had not undergone the actual punishment imposed by the Board. Therefore, his representation dated 05.7.2007 seeking for promotion on the strength of the earlier stay order cannot be countenanced.
7. Now that the writ petition being W.P. No. 36488 of 2005 is dismissed, the petitioner has to undergo the punishment and only thereafter, he can make his claim for any promotion. In view of the same, the second writ petition also cannot be countenanced.
8. In view of the above, both the writ petitions stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
Index : Yes 03..12..2007 Internet : Yes gri To 1. The Chairman Tamil Nadu Electricity Board 800 Anna Salai Chennai 2 2. The Chief Engineer Office of the Chief Engineer Distribution Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Vellore Region, Vellore 3. The Superintending Engineer Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Dharmapuri Electricity Distribution Circle Dharmapuri