Writ appeal by a delinquent TANGEDCO employee challenging the Single Judge's order modifying his misconduct punishment to stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect. The Division Bench found the enquiry officer and appellate authority had proved charges and saw no reason to interfere, dismissing the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.A.(MD)No.98 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 20.03.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
W.A.(MD)No.98 of 2022 and C.M.P(MD)No.1028 of 2022
G.Ponnu Pandy ... Appellant/ petitioner
-vs-
... Respondents/Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act praying this Court to set aside the order of this Court made in W.P(MD)No.22312 of 2015, dated 23.11.2021.
For Petitioner : Mr.H.Mohammed Imran
For Respondents : Mr.B.Ramanathan
Page 1 of 6
W.A.(MD)No.98 of 2022
Additional Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J .)
Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD).No.22312 of 2015 dated 23.11.2021, the present intra-Court appeal is preferred by a delinquent employed under the TANGEDCO, who had been found guilty of grave misconduct.
has already attained superannuation and therefore, the said modification in the punishment is required. The writ appeal is filed challenging the said order on the ground that the enquiry officer failed to consider the explanation in proper perspective and findings of the appellate authority without assigning reason
Page 2 of 6
W.A.(MD)No.98 of 2022
ought to have been interfered into and the learned Single Judge should have to set aside the punishment instead of modifying the same.
Page 3 of 6
W.A.(MD)No.98 of 2022
baseless the punishment imposed requires modification to the stoppage of increments without cumulative effect, this Court finds no reason or justification to interfere the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P(MD)No.22312 of 2015, dated 23.11.2021. Hence, the writ appeal is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
20.03.2025
NCC :yes/No Index :yes/No Internet:yes/No rgm
Page 4 of 6
W.A.(MD)No.98 of 2022
To
Page 5 of 6
W.A.(MD)No.98 of 2022
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J. and R.POORNIMA, J.
rgm
W.A.(MD)No.98 of 2022 and C.M.P.(MD)No.1028 of 2022
20.03.2025
Page 6 of 6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Single Judge's modification of punishment to stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect, after finding the enquiry and appellate orders valid, warranted interference.
G.Ponnu Pandy
The Chief Engineer (Distribution), TANGEDCO, Madurai Division
The Superintending Engineer (Distribution), TANGEDCO, Dindigul Distribution Circle
G.Jayachandran
R.Poornima
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
