V.Chandrasekaran Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records pertaining to the impugned Charge Memo Lr.No.1833/2009 dated 26.11.2024 issued by the respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to fix the employee benefits and the provisional benefits with all monetary and retirement benefits till date, as per the Tamil Nadu Electricity Service Regulation.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.Aravind Subramanian Senior Counsel for M/s.V.Shenaz For Respondent : Mr.R.Sasikumar Government Advocate

¶13

1/4

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.No.22009 of 2025

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

Mr.R.Sasikumar, learned Government Advocate takes notice on

¶18

behalf of the respondent. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶19

2.The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned Charge Memo Lr.No.1833/2009 dated 26.11.2024 issued by the respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to fix the employee benefits and the provisional benefits with all monetary and retirement benefits till date, as per the Tamil Nadu Electricity Service Regulation.

¶20

3.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently submits that the petitioner was already acquitted in a criminal case in Spl.C.C.No.07 of 2009 vide order dated 13.12.2021. It is the further submission of the petitioner that the charges framed in the criminal case as well as the charge memorandum issued to the petitioner is identical one and witness and documents relied in the criminal case are again relied in the disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, it is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that as

¶21

2/4

¶22

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

¶23

W.P.No.22009 of 2025

¶24

per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR2024SC637 [Ram Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.], the disciplinary proceedings is to be quashed. In this connection, the petitioner has sent representation to the respondent on 20.02.2025 and such representation is still pending before the respondent.

¶25

4.At this juncture, the learned Government Advocate would fairly

¶26

submit that the respondent would consider the petitioner's representation within a reasonable time.

¶27

5.In such view of the matter, this Court, without going into the

¶28

merits of the matter, deems it appropriate to direct the respondent to consider the above representation of the petitioner upon its own merits and in accordance with law and pass orders, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶29