Dismissed¶25

N.Balavenkatesh v. The Director/Distribution

Madras HC2 Jun 2025WA(MD)/1298/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

TANGEDCO employee transfer challenge; contention that transfer was punitive and passed without enquiry rejected; unauthorized leave of 4224 days since 1999; 13 disciplinary proceedings; punishment to run until 2030; transfer upheld as for administrative reasons; judicial non-interference in service transfer; writ appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent dismissed, no costs; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; W.A(MD) No.1298 of 2025; connected C.M.P.(MD)No.7863 of 2025 closed.

What did the court decide?

The contention that the transfer order was punitive in nature and could not have been passed without holding an enquiry was rejected. ¶25

N.Balavenkatesh Vs The Director/Distribution — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

W.A(MD) No.1298 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated : 02.06.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶6

W.A(MD) No.1298 of 2025 and C.M.P.(MD)No.7863 of 2025

¶7

N.Balavenkatesh ... Appellant / Petitioner

¶8

¶9

1.The Director / Distribution Administrative Branch, N.P.K.R.R.Maligai, No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.

¶10

2.The Superintending Engineer, Thanjavur Electricity, Distribution Circle, Thanjavur. ... Respondents/ Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying this Court to set aside the order dated 11.06.2024 passed in W.P. (MD)No.11493 of 2024.

¶12

1/4

¶13

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

¶14

W.A(MD) No.1298 of 2025

¶15

For Appellant : Mrs.S.Esai Rani for Mr.P.M.Vishnuvarthanan

¶16

For Respondent : Mr.

¶17

ORDER

¶18

( Order of the Court was made by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)

¶19

Heard both sides.

¶20

The appellant is employed in TANGEDCO. He assailed the transfer order dated 09.05.2024 in W.P.(MD)No.11493 of 2024. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 11.06.2024. Challenging the same, this writ appeal has been filed.

¶21

The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned transfer order is punitive in nature and that therefore, it could not have been passed without holding an enquiry. He also relied on a catena of decisions.

¶22

2/4

¶23

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

¶24

W.A(MD) No.1298 of 2025

¶25

We are not impressed by the said submission. We decline to interfere because of the glaring facts that are starring at our face. The petitioner had been on unauthorized leave to the tune of 4224 days since 1999. As many as 13 disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. It is stated that punishment will run its course only by the year 2030. In these circumstances, for administrative reasons, the transfer order came to be passed. We do not find any ground to interfere. The Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶26

(G.R.S., J.) (K.R.S., J.) 02.06.2025

¶27

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No rmi

¶28

3/4

¶29

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

¶30

W.A(MD) No.1298 of 2025

¶31

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. AND K.RAJASEKAR, J.