1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02/08/2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.(MD) Nos.8500 to 8504 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).Nos.1, 1, 1, 1 & 1 of 2011 S.Ganesan ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.8500/2011 P.Muthu ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.8501/2011 M.Sambath ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.8502/2011 S.Karuppaiah ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.8503/2011 P.Vellaichamy ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.8504/2011 Vs. 1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 144, Annasalai, Chennai-2. 2.The Chief Engineer/Personnel/ Admin, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai -2. 3.The Superintending Engineer, Office of the Superintending Engineer, Pudukkottai Electricity Distribution Circle, Pudukkottai. ... Respondents 1 to 3 in all the writ petitions 4.The Assistant Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Thiruvarangulam, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District. ... 4th respondent in W.P.(MD).Nos.8500 & 8503 of 2011 5.The Store Custodian, Sub Store, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Aliyanilai, Aranthangi Taluk, Pudukkottai District. ... 4th respondent in W.P.(MD).No.8501 of 2011 6.The Assistant Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Aranthangi, Pudukkottai District. ... 4th respondent in W.P.(MD).Nos.8502 of 2011 7.The Assistant Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Andakulam, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukkottai District. ... 4th respondent in W.P.(MD).Nos.8504 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from interfering into the service continuation of the petitioner without conducting any enquiry and following the procedures contemplated under TNEB Standing Orders relating to the allegations of producing bogus educational qualification certificate. For petitioner in all the writ petitions .. Mr.K.Baalasundharam For respondents in all .. Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen, the writ petitions Additional Government Pleader COMMON ORDER Mandamus sought for, forbearing the respondents from interfering with the service continuation of the petitioner, without conducting any enquiry and following the procedures contemplated under TNEB standing orders, on the ground of protection of bogus educational qualification certificates, cannot be granted for the reason that perusal of the averments made in the supporting affidavit show that the show cause notices have been issued by the Assistant Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Thiruvarangulam, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District, calling upon the petitioners to submit their explanations. 2.When the writ petitioners challenged the show cause notices in W.P.(MD).Nos.4777 to 4781 of 2011, this Court, by order dated 26.04.2011, disposed of the same with the direction to the petitioners therein to submit their explanations. It is the case of the petitioners that explanations were also submitted and till date, no orders have been passed. While that be so, the petitioners went to the Office on 21.07.2011 and the Assistant Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Thiruvarangulam, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District, the fourth respondent herein informed the petitioners that the third respondent has orally instructed him not allow the petitioners to discharge the office from the month of August, 2011 and in such circumstances, the fourth respondent did not allow the petitioners to discharge their duties. 3.In support of the above said pleadings, Mr.K.Baalasundharam, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents have failed to see that as per the proceedings of the Chief Engineer/Personnel B.P.(FB) No.27, dated 07.11.2002, even for production of bogus certificates, individuals can be punished only with reduction of pay only to the minimum time scale of pay and not oral termination of services. He has also contended that the respondents have failed to see that oral termination infringes the petitioners' right guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. When the petitioners themselves have pleaded that there is an oral termination from 21.07.2011, the same can be challenged only in the manner known to law. Even if there is any violation of procedures of the Chief Engineer/Personnel B.P. (FB) No.27, dated 07.11.2002, and if there is any unfair labour practices in passing an order of termination, the only course open to the petitioners is to challenge the same and mandamus cannot be issued. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 4.In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to issue a mandamus, as prayed for. The writ petitions are dismissed, giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum or challenge any order of termination, in the manner known to law. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(T & P) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To 1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 144, Annasalai, Chennai-2. 2.The Chief Engineer/Personnel/ Admin, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai -2. 3.The Superintending Engineer, Office of the Superintending Engineer, Pudukkottai Electricity Distribution Circle, Pudukkottai. 4.The Assistant Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Thiruvarangulam, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District. 5.The Store Custodian, Sub Store, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Aliyanilai, Aranthangi Taluk, Pudukkottai District. 6.The Assistant Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Aranthangi, Pudukkottai District. 7.The Assistant Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Andakulam, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukkottai District. gcg W.P.(MD) Nos.8500 to 8504 of 2011 02.08.2011 TR : 02.08.2011 : 3p/8c : IT https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/