Karuppasamy P v. The Superintending Engineer

ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶2The petitioner challenges the impugned order whereby recovery has been ordered. The service regulation governing TANGEDCO employees is clear to the effect that before imposing such penalty, an employee must be given opportunity. In this case, no such opportunity was given. On this technical ground of violation of principles of natural justice, the recovery order alone is set aside. An employer is given liberty to proceed afresh on merits and in accordance with law. All other contentions of the writ petitioner are left.

¶3The Writ Petition is allowed on these terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

06.06.2023 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No rmi

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. rmi

06.06.2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 06.06.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.9635 & 9641 of 2023 P.Karuppasamy ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Superintending Engineer, Tirunelveli Electricity Distribution Circle, TANGEDCO/TNEB, Maharaja Nagar, Tirunelveli District-11. 2.The Executive Engineer, (Distribution), TANGEDCO/TNEB, NGO Colony, Sankarankoil, Tenkasi District. ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Ku.Aa.No.00785/51/NePe-IV/ou1/Koo.o.Na/2022, dated 01.04.2023 (served on 12.04.2023) on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as illegal insofar as the order of recovery of Rs.11,59,127/- with interest from the petitioner's salary forthwith. For Petitioner : Mr.I.Pinaygash For Respondents : Mr.S.Arivalagan Standing Counsel