IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04.11.2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K. CHANDRU W.P No.11371 of 2009 D.Rajamanickam .. Petitioner Vs. 1. The Chairman, The Tamilnadu Electricity Board, No.800, Anna Salai, Chennai. 2. The Chief Engineer (Personnel) The Tamilnadu Electricity Board, No.800, Anna Salai, Chennai. 3. The Superintending Engineer, Dindigul Electricity Distribution Circle, The Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Madurai Region, Dindigul. 4. The Superintending Engineer, Villupuram Electricity Distribution Circle, Villupuram. 5. The Enquiry Officer/Executive Engineer, Dindigul Electricity Distribution Circle (South) The Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Madurai Region, Dindigul. .. Respondents Writ Petition filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the proceedings of fourth respondent in Memo No.016742/ADM.3/A.1/FDP/2008 dated 5.1.2009 and quash the same and consequently reinstate the petitioner into service as the fair disciplinary proceedings afresh could not be proceeded against the petitioner as directed by this Court in W.A.No.1337 of 2008 dated 24.11.2008. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Senthilnathan For Respondents : Mr.M.Vaidyanathan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R The petitioner, who is the assistant engineer in the respondent Board, has come forward to file the present writ petition seeking to set aside the order of the fourth respondent dated 5.1.2009 and consequently reinstate the petitioner in service, since the fair disciplinary proceedings could not be proceeded against the petitioner as directed by this Court in W.A.No.1337 of 2008 dated 24.11.2008. 2.The order impugned in the writ petition is the suspension order passed by the Board subsequent to the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court. The petitioner earlier filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.23429 of 2004 to set aside the order of dismissal passed by the Superintending Engineer, Dindigul Electricity Distribution Circle. The said writ petition was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a review application in R.A.No.188 of 2007 to review the order of dismissal of the writ petition dated 23.10.2007. That was allowed by an order dated 10.4.2008 and the petitioner's dismissal was set aside by this Court. The Board, aggrieved by the same, filed an appeal in W.A.No.1337 of 2008. A Division Bench of this Court passed a final order dated 24.11.2008. In that order, the Division Bench in paragraph 4, observed as follows:- "4.The fact remains that the respondent has received all the documents relied on by the appellants and he has no grievance at all. Hence, the respondent is directed to give a written statement of his defence within a period of ten days from today, i.e. on or before 5th December, 2008 and thereafter, enquiry will take place and the same has to be completed within two months from the date of receipt of explanation submitted by the respondent. We are not saying anything on merits. With this observation, the writ appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs." 3.In the aforesaid paragraph, it is shown that the petitioner was supplied with all the documents and he was also directed to file a written statement of defence within ten days and the enquiry should be completed within two months. On the basis of the TNEB regulations, after the order passed by the Division Bench, the respondent, by an order dated 5.1.2009 made the petitioner under suspension and to continue the enquiry. It must be noted that there is no order of the Division Bench to restore the petitioner into service. Even otherwise when an order is set aside on technical ground without there being any further direction, there is no question of the petitioner being restored to service. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.Subsequent to the order by the Division Bench, the enquiry officer conducted an enquiry on 25.5.2009. In the proceedings recorded by the enquiry officer dated 25.5.2009, it is stated that there are five witnesses. Ultimately, on the side of the Board, only two witnesses were examined. Subsequent to the examination of those witnesses, the Board completed its oral evidence. The petitioner made a statement that he wanted to cross-examine a non-examined witness, one Ramasubramaniam, Executive Engineer. It is for that the enquiry officer recorded that only when the Board examined the said witness in the chief examination, the question of cross-examination will arise. Thereafter, when a further question was put by the enquiry officer, the petitioner stated that except for the fact that he was not allowed to cross-examine M/s.Ramasubramaniam and Murugan, in other respects, the enquiry was satisfactory. Thereafter, when a further question was asked whether he wants to give any defence statement, the petitioner sought for 15 days time and therefore, recording the same, the enquiry was adjourned to 9.6.2009. 5.Pursuant to the request made by the petitioner to submit a defence statement, he sent a representation dated 4.6.2009. Even before the enquiry officer could submit his report, this present writ petition has been filed. Notice was ordered to the counsel for the respondent Board. Even without admission of the writ petition, this Court by an order dated 25.6.2009 granted an interim stay of further proceedings. On behalf of the Board, Mr.M.Vaidyanathan, learned counsel for the Electricity Board, appears. 6.The present attempt by the petitioner to stall the enquiry even before any report can be given by the enquiry officer is clearly illegal. The petitioner's challenge to the order dated 5.1.2009 is misconceived, because the Division Bench, in its order, never asked for restoration of the petitioner's service; on the contrary, had directed the Board to complete the enquiry within two months and pass appropriate orders. Therefore, under no circumstances, any person can stall the enquiry being completed by the Board. Further, after the explanation offered by the petitioner, the enquiry officer will have to submit his report taking into account all relevant factors including the objections raised by the petitioner. As and when any report is filed by the enquiry officer, in the light of the legal precedents, the Board will also give an opportunity to submit his further explanation on the enquiry report. Therefore, there will be one more stage for the petitioner to express his grievance about the so-called non-observance of principles of natural justice in the conduct of the enquiry. It is, thereafter, the disciplinary authority will have to pass appropriate orders taking into account not only the enquiry report but also the petitioner's objections. Even if any such adverse orders are passed, there is a further appeal and also revision before the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Board. Under these circumstances, any attempt to interdict in the further proceedings will be clearly an abuse and this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition at this stage. 7.In the light of the above, the writ petition will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions will stand closed. sra Sd/- Asst. Registrar //True Copy// Sub Asst. Registrar To 1. The Chairman, The Tamilnadu Electricity Board, No.800, Anna Salai, Chennai. 2. The Chief Engineer (Personnel) The Tamilnadu Electricity Board, No.800, Anna Salai, Chennai. 3. The Superintending Engineer, Dindigul Electricity Distribution Circle, The Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Madurai Region, Dindigul. 4. The Superintending Engineer, Villupuram Electricity Distribution Circle, Villupuram. 5. The Enquiry Officer/Executive Engineer, Dindigul Electricity Distribution Circle (South) The Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Madurai Region, Dindigul. + 1 cc to Mr.M.Vaidyanathan, Advocate SR No.59026 W.P.No.11371 of 2009 KK(CO) SR/16.11.2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/