Allowed

A.George Alexis v. the Cheif Engineer/Distn

Madras HC21 Feb 2017WP/42029/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice Anita Sumanth allowed this writ petition challenging a confirmation order in a service dispute. The court held that the appellate authority violated natural justice by dismissing the appeal without addressing the petitioner's explanations or providing reasons, failing to issue a speaking order despite TNEB regulations mandating personal hearings. The impugned order was set aside with a dir

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; First respondent directed to hear appeal and dispose within eight weeks providing due opportunity.

A.George Alexis Vs the Cheif Engineer/Distn — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED 21.02.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶6

W.P. No.42029 of 2002

A.George Alexis

.. Petitioner

-vs-

1.The Chief Engineer/Distribution, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai Region/South, 802, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.

¶11

2.The Superintending Engineer/CEDC, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chengalpattu, Kancheepuram District. .. Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the first respondent in Memo No.016593/260/Adm.O/B.I/2001-6 dated 24.05.2002 confirming the order passed by the second respondent in Memo No.288/ADM.II/A-1 dated 15.05.2001 and quash the same and direct the respondents to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Rajendran

¶13

For Respondents : Mr.R.Dhanaram

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This writ petition challenges an order of the Chief Engineer/ Distribution, Chennai Region, Chennai, in Memo No.016593/260/ Adm.O/B.I/2001-6 dated 24.05.2002.

¶16

¶17

2.The crux of the writ petition is to the effect that the impugned order passed by the first respondent is violative of the provisions of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Employees D & A Regulations and the requirements of natural justice, being wholly non-speaking.

¶18

3.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would draw the attention of the Court to the contents of the impugned order pointing out that the detailed grounds filed by him challenging the report of Enquiry Officer and the order of Superintending Engineer, have not even been adverted to, let alone adjudicated upon.

¶19

4.It is seen that the petitioner has filed a detailed appeal refuting each charge made against him. He has also raised a specific averment that no personal hearing was granted to him prior to the issue of final orders by the original authority which is a mandatory requirement in terms of the D & A Regulations. In disposing the appeal, it is incumbent upon the first respondent to have adverted to the explanation offered and considered the same and then arrived at a conclusion. However, a perusal of the impugned order would indicate that this has not been done. The Appellate Authority merely confirms the punishment imposed without even adverting to the explanations offered by the petitioner or providing reasons for his conclusions. The

¶20

¶21

principles of the natural justice require a speaking order to be passed which has not been done in this case. The operative portion of the order reads thus:-

¶22

"Various points put forth by the appellant in his appeal petition and the written defence statement has been carefully examined with all the connected records the undersigned finds no fresh points put forth by the appellant to mitigate the gravity of the charges. Hence Chief Engineer/Distribution/Chennai Region/South is of the view to confirm the punishment already imposed by the Superintending Engineer/Chengai Electricity Distribution Circle/Chengalpattu. In view of the above, it is ordered that the appeal preferred by Thiru.A.George Alexis, then Assistant Engineer/Shift/400 KV SS/Sriperumbudur is hereby "REJECTED"."

¶23

5.The appeal is dismissed stating merely that nothing new has been put forth in appeal. In my view, this does not amount to proper disposal of the appeal and the Appellate Authority ought to have tested the grounds raised against the conclusion of the original authority prior to arriving at his conclusion.

¶24

6.In the light of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the first respondent/Appellate Authority is directed to hear the appeal and dispose of the same within a period of eight weeks from the date

vga

Dr.ANITA SUMANTH,J.

of receipt of a copy of this order, after providing due opportunity to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.

21.02.2017

vga

1.The Chief Engineer/Distribution, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai Region/South, 802, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.

¶33

2.The Superintending Engineer/CEDC, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chengalpattu, Kancheepuram District.

¶34

W.P. No.42029 of 2002

¶35

http://www.judis.nic.in

A.George Alexis v. the Cheif Engineer/Distn

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.George Alexis v. the Cheif Engineer/Distn

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.S Sarma Vs Secretary and Officiating

M.Sakthivel Vs 1.THE Central Registrar

N.K.Rathinam Vs Govt of Tamilnadu, Rep by Its

Vs Inspector of Police B-6

Farida Shoes Ltd. Vs the Secry to Govt of Tamilnadu

Damayanthi Mathurdas Chandan Vs the Chairman & Managing