Madras High Court
N. Saravanan vs ) The Superintending Engineer
Author: B.Pugalendhi
Bench: B.Pugalendhi
WP(MD). No.13258 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Monday, the Sixteenth day of December Two Thousand and Twenty Four
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
WP(MD). No.13258 of 2021
N. SARAVANAN
S/o.Natarajan, Accounts Supervisor (under
suspension), O/o. Assistant Accounts
Officer/Revenue Branch, O and
M/Urban/TANGEDCO/Karur,
Res. At. No.1, Gandhi Road (WEST),
Muthurajapuram, Karur-3. ... Petitioner
Vs
1) THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
O/o. the Superintending Engineer, Tamilnadu
Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
TANGEDCO), Karur Electricity Circle, Karur
2) The Executive Engineer
O and M/Urban/Karur/Tamilnadu Generation and
Distribution Corporation Ltd., (TANGEDCO),
TNEB Complex, Kovai Road, Karur- 639 002.
3) The Chief Engineer/Personnel,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited,
8th Floor, N.P.K.R.R. Maaligai,
144, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. ... Respondents
(R3 is Suo Motu impleaded vide Court order
dated 16.12.2024 in WP(MD). No.13258 of 2021 by BPJ)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/19
WP(MD). No.13258 of 2021
Prayer :-
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue a Writ of
Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the impugned charge Memo issued by
the 1st respondent in Ku.aa.No.012552/529/Ni.Pi.1/vu.tha.2/Ko.spl/2012-22 dated
08.04.2021 and quash the same.
ORDER:This Petition coming on for orders on this day and upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.P.Mahendran, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Ms.Malini, Advocate for the 1st and 2nd respondents, this Court made the following order:
A case in Crime No. 31 of 2011 has been registered as against this petitioner, who was working as an Accounts Supervisor in Tamil Nadu General and Distribution Corporation Ltd., Karur along with an Administrative supervisor, based on a complaint lodged by one R.Saravanan, a line Inspector, TANGEDCO, Nachalur Office that both the petitioner and the Administrative supervisor have demanded a sum of Rs.5,000/- from him for getting a favourable order from the Superintending Engineer in the year 2021. The case has been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 7,12 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After investigation, a final report has been filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court/Special Court for PC Act Cases, Trichy and the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/19 WP(MD). No.13258 of 2021 same was taken on file in Special CC No.3 of 2013. In pursuant to the criminal case registered as against this petitioner, he was placed under suspension, by the Superintending Engineer, Karur/the first respondent, vide his proceedings in Memo.No.012552/529/Adm.L/A2/F.DVAC/2011-2, dated 16.12.2011. The prosecution sanction was also accorded by the first respondent on 24.09.2012. While so, he was issued with a charge memo on 08.04.2021 and the same is under challenge in this writ petition. The only ground raised by the petitioner as against the impugned charge memo is that the charge memo has been issued after 10 years from the date of his suspension.
2. On 02.08.2021, Mr.T.Sakthi Kumar, learned Standing Counsel took notice for the respondent Electricity Board and requested time for filing counter affidavit. On his request, this writ petition was posted on 09.08.2021, for the instructions of the respondent Board. On 09.08.2021, a request was once again made by the respondent Board sought for further time to get instructions. Therefore, this writ petition was adjourned to 17.08.2021. This Court, by order dated 17.08.2021 has granted three weeks time for filing Counter affidavit. Even then, the respondents have not filed their Counter affidavit. Therefore, this Court has passed a detailed order on 24.09.2021, which is as under:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/19 WP(MD). No.13258 of 2021 ''Heard Mr.Sricharan Rangarajan, learned counsel representing Mr.P.Mahendran, learned counsel on record for the petitioner and Mr.Anand Gopalan, learned counsel representing M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co. who entered appearance for the respondents by way of change of vakalat.
2. Despite more than three adjournments granted by this Court to the respondent Electricity Board for filing counter, till date they have not filed counter affidavit. Therefore, there shall be an order of interim stay subject to the condition that the petitioner makes explanation to the Authority concerned for the impugned charge memo.
3. Post on 06.10.2021.
4. It is brought to the notice of this Court that Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department has registered criminal cases against the employees of the Electricity Board and they are pending before the Criminal Courts, however, only in few cases, disciplinary proceedings have been initiated and in most of the cases, no disciplinary proceedings have been initiated.
5. That apart, it seen that the criminal case was registered against the petitioner as early as in the year 2011, however, charges have been framed only in the year 2021. It is not known why there is such a long delay about ten years in framing charges against a delinquent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/19 WP(MD). No.13258 of 2021
6. Therefore, on the next hearing date, the respondent Electricity Board has to explain as to why no departmental proceedings have been initiated in the cases, where the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department has registered cases and the same are pending before Criminal Courts for trial and as to why there is inordinate delay, as in the instant case, in framing charges against the delinquents after criminal cases were registered by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department.
7.Registry is directed delete the name of Mr.T.Sakthi Kumaran, learned counsel, for the respondent Electricity Board.''
3.Even, on 06.10.2021, a request was made on behalf of the respondent Board for adjournment and therefore, it was further adjourned to 27.10.2021. And after various dates, this case is listed before this Court today.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by referring to the earlier order of this Court, dated 24.09.2021 submits that the respondent Board has not yet filed their report as directed by this Court in the above order.
5.The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Board submits that an affidavit has been filed by the Chief Engineer before this Court in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/19 WP(MD). No.13258 of 2021 the month of October 2021. However, the learned Counsel is not having any details with regard to the USR number for the report said to have been filed. It is verified that no such affidavit is available in the Court bundle.
6.The petitioner, who is an accused in the case, which was registered by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, has not been dealt with the departmental proceedings for more than 10 years. Though the respondent Board has sanctioned the prosecution in the year 2012, the petitioner has made out a case, by referring to the Government Letter No. 1118/Per/N87, dated 22.12.1987, wherein, the Government has referred the earlier D.O.letter, dated 24.06.1986 and the same is as under:-
2. Instructions have been issued from time to time that the disciplinary cases should be disposed of expeditiously. Time limits to dispose of disciplinary cases have already been prescribed as follows:-
1. Departmental Disciplinary Proceedings:
(i) Investigation, framing of charges and taking decision as to who should deal with the case (i.e.) Department or Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings or Court of Law --4 months
(ii) Conducting enquiry by the investigating authorities --6 months
(iii) Issue of orders after report of Inquiring authority is received where punishing authority is different from inquiring authority ..140 days https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/19 WP(MD). No.13258 of 2021
2. Disciplinary cases arising out of Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption:-
(i) To complete the investigation by Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-
by Corruption and to send a report to Government through Vigilance Commission. --One year
ii) To complete the enquiry by the Tribunal and to send its findings to the Departments of Secretariat. --One year
(iii)To pass final orders by the Government/ Heads of Department on receipt of the report of the Tribunal. --Four months
3.Nevertheless, it has been observed that the disciplinary authorities are taking unduly long time in framing of charges, conducting enquiry and disposing of the departmental disciplinary proceedings. It is likely, that unjustified delay may result in quashing of the disciplinary proceedings by the Courts of Law and consequently the disciplinary authorities may not be in a position to Impose any penalty on the erring officials, notwithstanding the fact that the charges stand clearly proved.
4.In the above circumstances, the need to prescribe revised time limits for disposing of "Departmental Disciplinary Proceedings" arises. Further, the time limits already prescribed and indicated in para 2 above appear to be quite liberal. Hence, the following time limits are https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/19 WP(MD). No.13258 of 2021 now prescribed for processing the disciplinary proceedings so as to ensure that there is no unwarranted delay in finalising them:-
(i) For calling for explanation under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules or framing charges under 17(b) of the aforesaid rules after lapse comes to notice.
(The choice of the rule under which the disciplinary proceedings should be initiated is very important, and the Disciplinary Authorities are expected to exercise their mind and take decision) 15 days
(ii) For the accused Officer to peruse the records and to submit his written explanation. .....30 days
(iii)For appointment of enquiry Officer wherever necessary after the receipt of the explanation. .....7 days
(iv) For the Enquiry Officer to complete enquiry and submit the enquiry report. ....30 days
(v) For the Disciplinary Authority to take a decision, after the receipt of the Enquiry Officer's Report. ....10 days
(vi) For obtaining the views of TNPSC. whenever it is consulted, ..30 days
(vii) For issue of final orders on the departmental disciplinary proceedings:-
(a) By Disciplinary Authorities other than Government. ...7 days
(b) By Departments of Secretariat which have to consult other https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/19 WP(MD). No.13258 of 2021 Departments and obtain orders in circulation. ...30 days
5. Government desire that the above time limits should be followed and delay should be eliminated while processing disciplinary cases. The choice of the rule under which the disciplinary proceedings should be initiated is very important and the Disciplinary Authorities are expected to take decision regarding the rule under which disciplinary action should be initiated with due regard to the nature of lapses committed. indiscriminate recourse to Rule 17(b) will only cause delay in finalising the disciplinary proceedings. If for any valid reason, any disciplinary authority is not able to adhere to the above time limits, he should obtain the specific orders of the next higher authority for grant of extension of time, explaining the circumstances under which it has not been possible to process the case within the time limits prescribed.
6. In cases where the delay occurs due to non-cooperation on the part of the accused officers, it is not necessary to wait indefinitely either for their explanation or for their appearance before the enquiry officers. Three reminders may be served on the accused officers to submit their explanations and where the explanations are not received in spite of these reminders without valid reasons, the disciplinary authorities can proceed on the assumption that the accused Officers have no explanation to offer. Similarly where the accused officers are required to appear before the Enquiry Officers and where they fail to do so without valid reasons, even after serving three reminders on them, the Enquiry https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/19 WP(MD). No.13258 of 2021 Officers may proceed to conduct exparte enquiries, In accordance with rules and procedures and submit their reports.
7.The object behind the issue of these instructions is that all delays while processing disciplinary cases should be avoided. At the same time, it should be clearly remembered that while handling the disciplinary cases, all the procedures and formalities contemplated in the Rules should be followed without fail.
8.In this connection, Government would like to re-iterate the instructions in their letter No.77288/Per-N/82-4, dated 22.11.83 that deliberate and arbitrary delay in enquiring the cases on the part of the inquiry officer or on the part of the disciplinary authority, as the case may be, without valid reasons shall be treated as an abatement to shield the delinquent officer and severe disciplinary action should be taken against such officers.
9.Regarding the time limits for completion of investigation/enquiry respectively by Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption / Tribunals and sending their reports, the existing time limits prescribed in the Government letter cited will be followed until further orders.
7.The Hon’ble Justice D.Krishnakumar, as then he was in dealing with a similar matter, by referring to the earlier directions issued by the Government, has https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/19 WP(MD). No.13258 of 2021 passed an order in WP(MD) No.4156 of 2016, dated 29.07.2019 and the relevant portion is extracted as under:-
9.From the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is seen that after receiving the recommendation from the DV&AC, appropriateorders have been passed by the respondent Board against the delinquent employees. As on date, the cases pending with DV&AC of the delinquent employees are as follows:i) Number of pending DVAC cases 225
ii) Number of DVAC cases, in which charges framed 56
iii) Number of DVAC cases, charges not framed 169
10.Further, it is stated that out of 169 cases, for 38 individuals suspension orders were already revoked, but as on date, the original Criminal Cases filed by DV&AC are still pending before the jurisdictional Court concerned. As per the general practice, on receipt of the report from DV&AC with regard to trap and arrest, the employee concerned will be placed under suspension by the competent authority. In certain cases, the DV&AC would recommend the department concerned to initiate disciplinary proceedings and for those cases, the disciplinary proceedings would be initiated.
11.This Court is not satisfied with the said report and raised a query, why the respondent Board has not chosen to take action against all the erring employees, who are involved in criminal charges framed by the DV&AC Department. The first respondent/Chief Engineer (Personal), Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Chennai has filed the Additional Report dated 26.07.2019 before this Court and states as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11/19 WP(MD). No.13258 of 2021 It is stated in the report, in G.O.Ms.No.124, Personnel & Administrative Reforms (Per.N) Department, dated 22.02.1983, the following guidelines have been issued by the Government.
2. The Government have examined the above matter and have decided that the following procedure shall be adopted in such cases:
1) when a criminal case is filed solely on criminal offence committed by the Government Servant, which is in no way connected with the discharge of his official duties; there is no need to pursue departmental action except placing the Government Servant under suspension as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules. The ultimate departmental action can be initiated against the delinquent officer after the result of the criminal case pending against him is disposed of by the Court of Law; and
2) when both departmental as well as criminal action is initiated for the offences of the kind referred to in para 1 above, in regard to departmental action charges may be framed against him for the lapses committed by him and final orders may be passed after obtaining the required registers/records/documents from the Court irrespective of the fact whether he is acquitted or not. Thus the departmental action will be confined to the irregularities or lapses committed by the accused officer with reference to the administrative aspect.
12.Further, in memorandum No.49362 D1 86-1 (Secretariat Branch) dated 28.07.1986, the following guidelines have been issued:-
2. The following observations of the Full Bench of the Mysore High Court in T.V.Gowda Vs. State of Mysore (1975 11 LLJ513) on the distinction between https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12/19 WP(MD). No.13258 of 2021 criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings are relevant in this context.
1) a disciplinary proceedings is not a criminal trial;
2) in criminal proceedings, the purpose sought to be achieved is protection of the public while in disciplinary proceedings the purpose sought to be achieved is guilty and efficiency of the public service;
3) a criminal Court requires high standard of proof for convincing an accused, while such a standard of proof is not request for finding a person guilty to disciplinary proceedings and it is enough is there is preponderance of probability of the delinquent's guilt;
4) unlike in a criminal proceeding in a disciplinary proceeding the strict rules of evidence and the provisions of the Evidence Act do not apply;
5) officers are requested to note the above instructions for their future guidance and also dispose of all pending departmental proceedings on the above basis;
13.It is further stated that in the said 169 cases out of 225, concerned officers of the respondent Board had not taken any departmental disciplinary proceedings against the delinquent employees, who have committed irregularities and were placed under suspension based on the DV&AC Cases. Since the guidelines and necessary directions have been issued in the said G.O., dated 22.02.1983 and in the memorandum dated 28.07.1986, to initiate departmental disciplinary proceedings for the serious offences committed by the delinquent employees, no such action is taken by the respondent Board by following the said G.O., and the said memorandum.
14.The criminal proceedings and the departmental proceedings are entirely https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 13/19 WP(MD). No.13258 of 2021 different. In criminal matters, when there is a benefit of doubt in favour of the delinquent employee, he shall be discharged or acquitted from the criminal proceedings, whereas, in the departmental proceedings, based on the preponderance of probability, the delinquent employee has to explain before the authority concerned for the irregularities or lapses committed by him for the aforesaid charges. In these kind of criminal offences being registered by the DV&AC, if no disciplinary proceedings are taken against the concerned delinquent employees, the public would loss their confidence on the function of the respondent board for the irregularities committed by the concerned officials and staffs of the board, while discharging their official duties.
15.Further, it has been clarified from the aforesaid statement of the respondent Board that in some cases, based on the recommendation, the DV&AC Department has initiated disciplinary proceedings against the delinquent employees and in support of the same, materials have also been produced before this Court. But, in so many cases, departmental proceedings have not been initiated against the erring employees, against whom, criminal cases have been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (2) r/w 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. But, the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department, has registered criminal complaints against the erring Officers and staffs of the respondent board for the offences made out under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the same are pending before the concerned jurisdictional criminal Courts. Despite knowing the aforesaid fact, the respondent board has not initiated departmental disciplinary proceedings against the concerned erring officials and staffs of the respondent board, which https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 14/19 WP(MD). No.13258 of 2021 leads to lose the public faith on the functions of the respondent Board.
16.Thus, the respondent Board has to take necessary action by issuing appropriate instructions to the authorities concerned to take appropriate action against the erring officials and staffs of the respondent board in accordance with the Government Orders, if any complaint is received from the public or any individual as such. If any such action is being taken promptly, the general public would have confidence on the performance of the respondent board. Therefore, the first respondent has to issue necessary instructions to take action on the complaints, if any received with substantial materials against the erring officials and staffs of the respondent board
17.Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid facts and discussions and in view of the arguments advanced on either side, this Court is inclined to pass the following directions:
i) the third respondent is directed to issue suitable instructions to the officers concerned to comply with the aforesaid Government Order dated 22.02.1983 and the said memorandum dated 28.07.1986 in letter and spirit without any deviation, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;
ii) based on the aforesaid instruction, the first respondent shall communicate all the concerned officials for taking appropriate action against the erring officials and staffs of the respondent board, who are involved in criminal charges registered under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 15/19 WP(MD). No.13258 of 2021 lodged by the DV&AC Department. If no disciplinary action is taken by the officials concerned, the first respondent is directed to take necessary action against the officials concerned;
iii) the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department shall also furnish the relevant documents to the disciplinary authorities concerned in accordance with rules for initiating departmental disciplinary proceedings against the erring officials and staffs of the respondent board based on the criminal charges under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, lodged by the DV&AC Department; and
iv) insofar as the instant case is concerned, in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India (UOI) and others reported in 2015 (3) CTC 119, the second respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 09.06.2015 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;
8.In fact, the Hon’ble Justice D.Krishnakumar, as then he was, by referring to the earlier order of this Court, has directed the respondents to file their Counter affidavit as well as a report and the status of the disciplinary proceedings on the cases, which were registered by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department. This Court is of the view that for obvious reasons, the Departments are not initiating Departmental proceedings as against those persons, who have been https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16/19 WP(MD). No.13258 of 2021 arrayed as accused in the cases, which were registered by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department. This is one such case. Though this Court has repeatedly issued directions, the respondents have not complied with the same and not furnishing the details as directed by this Court. Therefore, this Court, suo motu impleads the Chief Engineer/Personnel, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, 8th Floor, N.P.K.R.R. Maaligai, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002 as a party to this writ petition and this Court issues the following directions to the newly impleaded respondent:-
i. The reasons for not complying with the earlier order of this Court, dated 24.09.2021.
ii. Number of cases registered by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department as against the employees of TANGEDCO.
iii. The details of the departmental proceedings initiated as against those employees and its stage.
iv. The Chief Engineer shall also offer his explanation as to why a cost be imposed on the respondents, for not responding to this writ petition by filing a counter affidavit and also furnishing the details as directed by this Court, in its order dated 24.09.2021.
v. If the departmental proceedings have not been initiated deliberately, the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 17/19 WP(MD). No.13258 of 2021 details of the concerned officers, who have failed in their duty to adhere the Government instructions and what is the course of action open to the Board as against those officers.
vi. The Chief Engineer shall appear in person before this Court, along with the files and a report to the above queries, in the next date of hearing.
List on 06.01.2025.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (CS-I ) // True Copy // /01/2025 Sub Assistant Registrar (CS- I, II, III, IV) To
1) THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER O/o. the Superintending Engineer, Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., TANGEDCO), Karur Electricity Circle, Karur
2) The Executive Engineer O and M/Urban/Karur/Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., (TANGEDCO), TNEB Complex, Kovai Road, Karur- 639 002.
3). The Chief Engineer/Personnel, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 18/19 WP(MD). No.13258 of 2021 8th Floor, N.P.K.R.R. Maaligai, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.
Copy to:
The Section Officer, Writ Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
ORDER DATED : 16/12/2024 HEARING DATE : 20/01/2025 ======================= ORDER ======================== WP(MD). No.13258 of 2021 Giving direction and etc., as stated within.
ES(08/01/2025) 19P /5C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17.07.2023.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 19/19