Dismissed

Saravana Kumar .R v. The Chief Engineer

Madras HC4 Oct 2023WP(MD)/19854/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging removal from TANGEDCO service due to criminal conviction was dismissed. Court held that conviction bars continued service despite pending revision and suspended sentence. Petitioner allowed to approach employer upon final appellate decision.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; liberty to approach TANGEDCO for reconsideration after final appellate order.

Saravana Kumar .R Vs The Chief Engineer — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.19854 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 04.10.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

W.P(MD)No.19854 of 2023 and

¶7

W.M.P(MD) No.16402 of 2023

¶8

R.Saravana Kumar (44/23) Inspector of Assessment (Removed from Board of Service) D.No.2/104, North Street, Thiruthalaiyur Post, Musiri, Trichy. ...Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Chief Engineer, Office of the Trichy Electricity Distribution Circle, Thennur, Trichy.

¶11

The Superintending Engineer, Office of the Trichy Electricity Distribution Circle, Trichy.

¶12

The Executive Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, Office of the TANGEDCO, Thuraiyur, Trichy.

¶13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶14

1/6

¶15

The Assistant Executive Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, Office of the TANGEDCO, Thuraiyur, Trichy.

¶16

W.P.(MD).No.19854 of 2023

¶17

The Assistant Engineer, Office of the TANGEDCO, Thuraiyur, Trichy.

¶18

...Respondents

¶19

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Ku.A.No.638/Ne.B.4/O.1/Ko. Ne.Ma/2021-2, dated 04.03.2022 passed by the second respondent and quash the same as illegal, since the second respondent herein dismissed the petitioner illegally and baselessly from his service without given reasonable opportunity and conducting proper enquiry even the impugned order without stated any reason straight away removed petitioner from his service is highly illegal and violated the basic principles of natural justice.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Mohamed Ali Jinnah For Respondents : Mrs.M.Parameswari Standing Counsel

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 04.03.2022, wherein, the writ petitioner was removed from service of Tamil

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

2/6

¶25

W.P.(MD).No.19854 of 2023

¶26

Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO) on the ground that he has been convicted in a criminal case.

¶27

It is an admitted fact that the writ petitioner was convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thuraiyur in C.C.No.199 of 2018, on 19.08.2021 and sentenced for three months and fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) was imposed. The writ petitioner had filed a criminal appeal in Crl.A.No.49 of 2021 before the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli and the same was also dismissed. Thereafter, the writ petitioner has filed the Criminal Revision Petition in Crl.R.C.No.1141 of 2022 before this Court and the same is pending. This Court has granted suspension of sentence.

¶28

The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner had contended that the dispute has nothing to do with his employment and it is only a private dispute with some third parties. The allegations made as against him are civil in nature and therefore, the conviction may not be taken into consideration by the employer. He had further contended that the employer should have awaited for the result of the Criminal Revision Petition in Crl.R.C.No.1141 of

¶29

3/6

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

W.P.(MD).No.19854 of 2023

¶32

2022 which is pending before this Court. He further pointed out that the sentence has been suspended by the High Court and therefore, there is no bar for him to be in service in TANGEDCO and he prayed for quashing the order of removal passed on 04.03.2022.

¶33

Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

¶34

respondents herein had relied upon the Standing Order No.19 (21) to impress upon the Court that conviction order passed by the Court is to be considered as misconduct and is liable to be removed from service.

¶35

I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned

¶36

counsel on either side.

¶37

6 Considering the fact that the conviction of the petitioner continues from 19.08.2021 onwards, the employee cannot be permitted to be in service of TANGEDCO. Therefore, there are no merits in this writ petition. T his Writ Petition stands dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the TANGEDO to cancel the order of removal of his service, based upon the outcome of the orders of this Court in Crl.R.C.No.1141 of 2022. There shall

¶38

4/6

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

W.P.(MD).No.19854 of 2023

¶41

be no order as to costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is

¶42

closed.

¶43

04.10.2023

¶44

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No ebsi

¶45

¶46

The Chief Engineer, Office of the Trichy Electricity Distribution Circle, Thennur, Trichy.

¶47

The Superintending Engineer, Office of the Trichy Electricity Distribution Circle, Trichy.

¶48

The Executive Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, Office of the TANGEDCO, Thuraiyur, Trichy.

¶49

The Assistant Executive Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, Office of the TANGEDCO, Thuraiyur, Trichy.

¶50

The Assistant Engineer, Office of the TANGEDCO, Thuraiyur, Trichy.

¶51

5/6

¶52

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶53

W.P.(MD).No.19854 of 2023

¶54

R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.

¶55

ebsi

¶56

W.P(MD)No.19854 of 2023

¶57

04.10.2023

¶58

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶59

6/6

Saravana Kumar .R v. The Chief Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saravana Kumar .R v. The Chief Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shanthi.B Vs the Principal Secretary

Edwin.J Vs The Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension)

Murugan.v Vs The Joint Commissioner of Labour

Maheswari.M Vs The Principal Accountant General (a and E)

Kelvin .P Vs The Commissioner of School Education

N.R.Murugan Vs The District Collector