1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.10.2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.(MD)No.11697 of 2011 K.R.Subramanian ... Petitioner Vs. 1.Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution, Company lImited,rep. by its Chairman/Managing Director, 809, Anna Salai,Chennai -2. 2.Chief Engineer(Distribution), Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution,Company Limited, K.Pudur, Madurai - 7. 3. Internal Audit Officer, Board Office Audit Branch/TNEB, NPKRR Maligai,1st Floor, 800, Anna Salai,Chennai -2. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings bearing (Per) CMD TANGEDCO Proceedings No. 48 dated 27.6.2011 read with proceedings bearing CE/Distribution/Madurai Memo No. 10181/174/D2/2002-52 dated 8.10.2003 issued by the second respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to refix the petitioner's pension by treating his final pay as Rs.13,475/- on 28.2.2005 and pay the pensionary arrears after deducting the monetary equivalent of the penalty imposed on the petitioner and pass such other and further orders as this Court ma deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. For Petitioner : Mr. G.R.Swaminathan O R D E R The petitioner K.R.Subramanian has come to this Court seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings bearing (Per) CMD TANGEDCO Proceedings No. 48 dated 27.6.2011 read with proceedings bearing CE/Distribution/Madurai Memo No. 10181/174/D2/2002-52 dated 8.10.2003 issued by the second respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to refix the petitioner's pension by treating his final pay as Rs.13,475/- on 28.2.2005. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, while serving as Assistant Executive Engineer, received a Show Case Notice on 13.8.2003. On completion of the departmental proceedings, the petitioner was found guilty and punishment of withholding of increment for a period of six months without cumulative effect was imposed by order dated 8.10.2003. Admittedly, the petitioner has not preferred any appeal against that order. After some time, the petitioner reached the age of superannuation on 28.2.2005. Since the increment has fallen due on 1.10.2003 and the punishment was imposed on 8.10.2003, it could not be enforced during the year 2003 for the next annual increment has fallen on 1.10.2004. But as per the punishment imposed against the petitioner the accrual of increment was postponed by six months. But in the meanwhile, he retired on 28.2.2005 and as a result, he had withdrawn a sum of Rs.13,175/- that was a pay he drew as on 1.10.2003. Therefore, his only contention is, instead of recovering the monetary equivalent of the increment ordered to be withheld, the authorities chose to freeze the pay that the petitioner drew on 1.10.2003. Therefore, they caused heavy prejudice for fixing the petitioner's benefits. As a result, the petitioner filed a memorial before the first https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 respondent, the Chairman- cum-Managing Director. The said memorial was rejected by the impugned order dated 27.6.2011. Aggrieved by the said impugned order, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 3. The only argument advanced before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order does not reflect the application of mind by the first respondent. When he has specifically taken a ground that the punishment of withholding of increment for a period of six months without cumulative effect dated 8.10.2003 has not been challenged and became final the respondents are entitled to execute the same, hence the method of execution of order of punishment cannot be questioned. The reason being, when the petitioner suffered a departmental proceedings by issuing a Show Cause Notice dated 13.8.2003 and the order of punishment dated 8.10.2003 in and by which withholding of increment for a period of six months without cumulative effect was imposed. Admittedly, the petitioner accepted the said punishment and he has not preferred any appeal. Having accepted the said punishment, the petitioner has not even challenged the said punishment. Even now, the only grievance advanced by the petitioner before this Court as well as before the first respondent is that the method of execution of the said punishment was not proper. The punishment dated 8.10.2003 clearly says that the respondent department is entitled to stop the increment for six months without cumulative effect. Meanwhile, the increment has fallen due on 1.10.2003 but it could not be enforced on 8.10.2003. However, the next increment has fallen due on 1.10.2004, but before the said punishment was given effect to, the petitioner reached the age of superannuation on 28.2.2005. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition and also the arguments advanced by the learned counsel to execute the said punishment in terms of Rule 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act 1948, Procedure to be followed where the punishment of withholding increment cannot be given effect to. The said procedure has to be followed but in the present case, when the petitioner has not challenged the order of punishment, he cannot have any grievance to implement the punishment. On that basis, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. SD DEPUTY REGISTRAR(WRITS) /TRUE COPY/ ASST REGISTRAR To 1.The Chairman-Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution, company Limited, 809, Anna salai, Chennai 2. 2. The Chief Engineer (Distribution) Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution, company Limited, 809, K.Pudur, Madurai 7. 3.Internal Audit Officer, Board Office Audit Branch-TNEB, NPKRR Maligai, 1st Floor, 800 Anna Salai, Chennai-2. SB:02/12/2011 2p 4c W.P.(MD)No 11697 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/