High Court · 2024

W.P.Nos.24164 and 24165 of 2010IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 05.01.2024CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARANW.P.Nos.24164 and 24165 of 2010andM.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2010K.Mani ...Petitioner in both petitionsVs1.Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Represented by its Chief Engineer, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Mettur Thermal Power Station, Mettur Dam, Salem District.2.The Superintending Engineer, Mettur Thermal Power Station, Mettur Dam, Salem District. ...Respondents in W.P.No.24164 of 20101.Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Represented by its Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 800, Anna Salai, Chennai – 2.2.The Chief Engineer (Personnel), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 800, Anna Salai, Chennai – 2.3.The Superintending Engineer (P&A),1/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.24164 and 24165 of 2010 Mettur Thermal Power Station, Mettur Dam, Salem District. ...Respondents in W.P.No.24165 of 2010PRAYER in W.P.No.24164 of 2010: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, after calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 19.08.2008 passed by the 2nd respondent in Ku.Aa.No.031421/186/Ni.Pi.1(5)/Ko.Thani /2008 and the order dated 30.10.2008 passed by the 1st respondent in Ku.Aa.No.031421/186/Ni.Pi.1(5)/Ko.Thani/2008, quash the same, award costs.PRAYER in W.P.No.24165 of 2010: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 2nd respondent in Memo No.038219/139/G29/G291/2007 dated 20.11.2009/2.12.2009 deleting the petitioners name from the approved panel for promotion to the post of Assistant(Accounts), quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to promote him to the post of Assistant(Accounts) as per the order dated 23.04.2009, with all consequential benefits, award costs.(In both Writ Petitions)For Petitioner: Mr.V.Ajoy Khose Mr.R.KrishnaswamyFor Respondents: Mr.D.David Sundar SinghCOMMON ORDER2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.24164 and 24165 of 2010The Writ Petition in W.P.No.24164 of 2010 is filed for quashing the order dated 19.08.2008 passed by the 2nd respondent in Ku.Aa.No.031421/186/Ni.Pi.1(5)/Ko.Thani /2008 and the order dated 30.10.2008 passed by the 1st respondent in Ku.Aa.No.031421/186/Ni.Pi.1(5)/Ko.Thani/2008.2.Petitioner joined as a Contract Labourer in 1988 and then was appointed as Helper and Typist through internal selection process. Thiru.K.Shanmugam, Superintending Engineer assumed office in Mettur Thermal Power Station and came to the Central Office for the first time on 13.02.2007 morning. Since petitioner was not aware of the new Superintending Engineer, he did not notice him when he came to office on 13.02.2007 and could not offer him respect. The Superintending Engineer got angry and annoyed and passed an order dated 16.02.2007, transferring the petitioner from Central office of Mettur Thermal Power Station to the Spare and Inventory Division of the Mettur Thermal Power Station. It was sought to be served on 20.02.2007at 4:30 p.m.. Since he did not make any request for any transfer and that there was no necessity 3/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.24164 and 24165 of 2010or administrative exigency to transfer him, he was put to shock and informed the Administrative supervisor that he was in a confused state of mind, due to shock and would receive the transfer order after consulting his union. The transfer order was served again on 22.02.2007 and he received the transfer order on 22.02.2007 and immediately joined in the new station. 3.On 21.02.2007, he was issued a show cause notice as to why Disciplinary Proceedings should not be initiated against him, for the alleged misconduct of refusal to receive the transfer order. Since he was not furnished with Tamil translation immediately, he submitted his explanation on 07.04.2007. It is clearly stated in his explanation that he did not refuse to receive the transfer order, but had only requested two days time to receive the transfer order after consulting his Union. 4.A charge memo dated 19.06.2007 was issued against him. After enquiry, the Enquiry Officer found that charge against him was not proved. However, the Disciplinary Authority differed from the findings of the Enquiry Officer and found him guilty of the charges and imposed 4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.24164 and 24165 of 2010punishment of withholding two increments without cumulative effect. His appeal was also decided by the same Disciplinary Authority by dismissing it. In the said circumstances, the Writ Petition in W.P.No.24164 of 2010 is filed.5.2nd respondent issued an approved panel containing the names of 829 persons, who were selected for promotion to the post of Assistant. Petitioner's name was shown in Serial No.817 in the said panel. By an order dated 23.04.2009 of the 2nd respondent, petitioner was promoted to Assistant (Accounts). However, he was not permitted to join the promoted post. He sent a representation dated 02.05.2009 to the 2nd respondent. 2nd respondent had ordered for deletion of the petitioner's name from the panel dated 26.04.2008 by an impugned order dated 20.11.2009, on the ground that, petitioner did not complete the period of punishment as on the date of the publication of the panel for promotion. In the said circumstances, the Writ Petition in W.P.No.24165 of 2010 is filed.5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.24164 and 24165 of 20106.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the transfer order given to the petitioner had come all of a sudden and out of a thin air, when there was least expectation on the part of the petitioner that he would be transferred. Only due to family circumstances, he wanted to consult his Union before receiving the transfer order. Thereafter, he received the transfer order on 22.02.2007 and joined in the new Station on the same date. Therfore, that would not amount to willful misconduct or disobedience of the order of transfer. This was rightly found by the Enquiry Officer, however the Disciplinary Authority had taken a different view and imposed punishment. The Disciplinary Authority had also decided the Appeal filed by the petitioner and dismissed it. This conduct would well establish the ill motive of the 2nd respondent against the petitioner. Thus, he prays for interference.7.In response, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that, the persons serving in the Government service is expected to obey the orders of Superiors. When a transfer order is effected, petitioner has no right to say that he would receive the transfer order only after consulting the Union. If this sort of representation is entertained, it would upset the 6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.24164 and 24165 of 2010administration of public offices. On a mercy petition filed petitioner, punishment was reduced from withholding of two increments into one increment. Thus, he prays for dismissal of this Writ Petition.8.Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.9.From the records produced and the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it is seen that transfer order was issued to the petitioner in Memo.No.05049/Adm.I(4)/F.Typ./2007 dated 16.02.2007. Transfer order reads that the individuals have to report for duty to the respective Stations after getting proper relief from their present Office. Petitioner was relived on 22.02.2007 vide Memo.No.350/Adm.II(1)/2007 dated 20.02.2007 from the office of the Superintending Engineer/P& A, Mettur Thermal Power Station/Mettur Dam. On the same day, he reported to duty at the office of Executive Engineer/S & I, Mettur Thermal Power Station, Mettur. 10.It is a specific case of the petitioner that he did not refuse to receive the transfer order but only informed that, due to family reasons, 7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.24164 and 24165 of 2010he would receive the transfer order after two days. It is no doubt that, a Government servant cannot make such a plea that he would receive the transfer order after two days, due to family circumstances or any other matter. But what has to be considered is that whether this refusal amounts to willful misconduct as defined under Rule 19(1) of Standing orders of the non-clerical workmen.11.For better understanding, Rule 19(1) of the Standing orders is extracted herein under,“Willful insubordination or disobedience whether alone or in combination with another or others of a lawful and reasonable order of a superior.”12.Petitioner's case is that the transfer order came all of a sudden and he had some family issues and therefore, he sought two days time for receiving the transfer order after consulting with the Union. Within 6 days of transfer order, he joined in the new Station as well. Therefore, I am of the view that, the refusal to receive the transfer order immediately will not be considered as willfull insubordination or disobedience. 8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.24164 and 24165 of 201013.From the records produced, I find that, the Disciplinary Authority overruled the findings of the Enquiry Officer exonerating the petitioner from all the charges and imposed punishment of withholding two increments. Petitioner filed Appeal against the punishment. Appeal ought to have disposed by some other officer, but the same Disciplinary Authority who overruled the findings of the Enquiry Officer, dismissed the Appeal and imposed the punishment. It is against the service jurisprudence and contrary to law and therefore, this Court is of the view that, there is a valid ground made out to believe that the respondents have acted with ill motive against the petitioner.14.It is pertinent to refer to the letter received from the Chief Engineer, Chennai to the Chief Engineer, Mettur to confirm that the same Disciplinary Authority had imposed punishment and also dismissed the Appeal. The relevant portion of the letter reads as follows: “ghh;itapy; Fwpg;gpl;l foj;jjpy; bgwg;gl;l jpU/f/kzp/jl;lr;jh;. cjhpfs; kw;Wk; bghUl;gl;oay;/nkl;Lh; mth;fspd; fUiz kDtpid ghprPypf;Fk; bghGJ md;dhh; kPJ xG';F eltof;if nkw;bfhs;sg;gl;L 23/05/2008 ehspl;l fhuzk; nfl;g[ Fwpg;ghizapy; cj;njr jz;lidahf ,uz;L“ 9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.24164 and 24165 of 2010Mz;LfSf;fhd Mz;L Cjpa cah;it gpd; tpist[fsd;wp epWj;jp itj;jy; vd;w jz;lidia tH';fyhk; vd;W Kot[ nkw;bfhz;l” nkw;ghh;it bghw;ahsUk; kDjhuhpd; nky; KiwaPL kDit ghprPyid bra;J. kDit js;Sgo bra;j jiyikg; bghwpahsh;/nkl;Lh; mdy; kpd; epiyak;/nkl;Lh; mth;fSk; xnu egh; vdj; bjhpatUfpwJ/ nkYk; ,J Fwpj;J kDjhuh; jdJ fUiz kDtpy; bjhptpj;Js;shh;/ mg;gog;gl;l epfH;t[ ,t;bthG';F eltof;ifapy; epfH;e;jpUg;gpd; mJ thhpa tpjpfSf;F KuzhdJ/vdnt. ,e;epfHpt[ Fwpj;J j';fspd; gjpy; kDjhuhpd; fUiz kDit ghprPypf;f mtrakhfj; njitg;gLtjhy; cldoahf ,J Fwpj;J jh';fs; ,j;Jld; ,izj;J mDg;gg;gLk; nfhg;g[fis Muha;e;J jf;f gjpYld; jpUg;gp ,t;tYtyfj;jpw;F mDg;gp itf;FkhW nfl;Lbfhs;fpnwd;/”15.It is clear from this letter that the disciplinary Authority has acted against the rules of Board and dismissed the appeal. Thus in view of the reasons aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the Disciplinary Authority had ill motive against the petitioner, and reversed the findings of the Enquiry Officer, imposed punishment and dismissed the Appeal filed by the petitioner and therefore, his orders are liable to be set aside and accordingly, the order dated 19.08.2008 passed by the 2nd respondent in Ku.Aa.No.031421/186/Ni.Pi.1(5)/Ko.Thani/2008 and the order dated 30.10.2008 passed by the 1st respondent in 10/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.24164 and 24165 of 2010Ku.Aa.No.031421/186/Ni.Pi.1(5)/Ko.Thani/2008 in W.P.No.24164 of 2010 are set aside and quashed. The order passed by the 2nd respondent in Memo No.038219/139/G29/G291/2007 dated 20.11.2009/2.12.2009 in W.P.No.24165 of 2010 is also quashed.16.Consequently, respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to join in his promoted post as Assistant(Accounts), on the basis of the approved panel containing the names of 829 persons, including the petitioner's name in Serial No.817 with necessary seniority, monetary and all other attended benefits, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. 17.With the above directions, these Writ Petitions are allowed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.05.01.2024Index:Yes/NoSpeaking order/Non-speaking ordergdG.CHANDRASEKHARAN, J.11/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.24164 and 24165 of 2010gdTo1.Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Represented by its Chief Engineer, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Mettur Thermal Power Station, Mettur Dam, Salem District.2.The Superintending Engineer, Mettur Thermal Power Station, Mettur Dam, Salem District. 3.Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Represented by its Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 800, Anna Salai, Chennai – 2.4.The Chief Engineer (Personnel), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 800, Anna Salai, Chennai – 2.5.The Superintending Engineer (P&A), Mettur Thermal Power Station, Mettur Dam, Salem District.W.P.Nos.24164 and 24165 of 201005.01.202412/12

W.P.Nos.24164 and 24165 of 2010IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 05.01.2024CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARANW.P.Nos.24164 and 24165 of 2010andM.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2010K.Mani ...Petitioner in both petitionsVs1.Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Represented by its Chief Engineer, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Mettur Thermal Power Station, Mettur Dam, Salem District.2.The Superintending Engineer, Mettur Thermal Power Station, Mettur Dam, Salem District. ...Respondents in W.P.No.24164 of 20101.Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Represented by its Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 800, Anna Salai, Chennai – 2.2.The Chief Engineer (Personnel), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 800, Anna Salai, Chennai – 2.3.The Superintending Engineer (P&A),1/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.24164 and 24165 of 2010 Mettur Thermal Power Station, Mettur Dam, Salem District. ...Respondents in W.P.No.24165 of 2010PRAYER in W.P.No.24164 of 2010: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, after calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 19.08.2008 passed by the 2nd respondent in Ku.Aa.No.031421/186/Ni.Pi.1(5)/Ko.Thani /2008 and the order dated 30.10.2008 passed by the 1st respondent in Ku.Aa.No.031421/186/Ni.Pi.1(5)/Ko.Thani/2008, quash the same, award costs.PRAYER in W.P.No.24165 of 2010: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 2nd respondent in Memo No.038219/139/G29/G291/2007 dated 20.11.2009/2.12.2009 deleting the petitioners name from the approved panel for promotion to the post of Assistant(Accounts), quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to promote him to the post of Assistant(Accounts) as per the order dated 23.04.2009, with all consequential benefits, award costs.(In both Writ Petitions)For Petitioner: Mr.V.Ajoy Khose Mr.R.KrishnaswamyFor Respondents: Mr.D.David Sundar SinghCOMMON ORDER2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.24164 and 24165 of 2010The Writ Petition in W.P.No.24164 of 2010 is filed for quashing the order dated 19.08.2008 passed by the 2nd respondent in Ku.Aa.No.031421/186/Ni.Pi.1(5)/Ko.Thani /2008 and the order dated 30.10.2008 passed by the 1st respondent in Ku.Aa.No.031421/186/Ni.Pi.1(5)/Ko.Thani/2008.2.Petitioner joined as a Contract Labourer in 1988 and then was appointed as Helper and Typist through internal selection process. Thiru.K.Shanmugam, Superintending Engineer assumed office in Mettur Thermal Power Station and came to the Central Office for the first time on 13.02.2007 morning. Since petitioner was not aware of the new Superintending Engineer, he did not notice him when he came to office on 13.02.2007 and could not offer him respect. The Superintending Engineer got angry and annoyed and passed an order dated 16.02.2007, transferring the petitioner from Central office of Mettur Thermal Power Station to the Spare and Inventory Division of the Mettur Thermal Power Station. It was sought to be served on 20.02.2007at 4:30 p.m.. Since he did not make any request for any transfer and that there was no necessity 3/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.24164 and 24165 of 2010or administrative exigency to transfer him, he was put to shock and informed the Administrative supervisor that he was in a confused state of mind, due to shock and would receive the transfer order after consulting his union. The transfer order was served again on 22.02.2007 and he received the transfer order on 22.02.2007 and immediately joined in the new station. 3.On 21.02.2007, he was issued a show cause notice as to why Disciplinary Proceedings should not be initiated against him, for the alleged misconduct of refusal to receive the transfer order. Since he was not furnished with Tamil translation immediately, he submitted his explanation on 07.04.2007. It is clearly stated in his explanation that he did not refuse to receive the transfer order, but had only requested two days time to receive the transfer order after consulting his Union. 4.A charge memo dated 19.06.2007 was issued against him. After enquiry, the Enquiry Officer found that charge against him was not proved. However, the Disciplinary Authority differed from the findings of the Enquiry Officer and found him guilty of the charges and imposed 4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.24164 and 24165 of 2010punishment of withholding two increments without cumulative effect. His appeal was also decided by the same Disciplinary Authority by dismissing it. In the said circumstances, the Writ Petition in W.P.No.24164 of 2010 is filed.5.2nd respondent issued an approved panel containing the names of 829 persons, who were selected for promotion to the post of Assistant. Petitioner's name was shown in Serial No.817 in the said panel. By an order dated 23.04.2009 of the 2nd respondent, petitioner was promoted to Assistant (Accounts). However, he was not permitted to join the promoted post. He sent a representation dated 02.05.2009 to the 2nd respondent. 2nd respondent had ordered for deletion of the petitioner's name from the panel dated 26.04.2008 by an impugned order dated 20.11.2009, on the ground that, petitioner did not complete the period of punishment as on the date of the publication of the panel for promotion. In the said circumstances, the Writ Petition in W.P.No.24165 of 2010 is filed.5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.24164 and 24165 of 20106.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the transfer order given to the petitioner had come all of a sudden and out of a thin air, when there was least expectation on the part of the petitioner that he would be transferred. Only due to family circumstances, he wanted to consult his Union before receiving the transfer order. Thereafter, he received the transfer order on 22.02.2007 and joined in the new Station on the same date. Therfore, that would not amount to willful misconduct or disobedience of the order of transfer. This was rightly found by the Enquiry Officer, however the Disciplinary Authority had taken a different view and imposed punishment. The Disciplinary Authority had also decided the Appeal filed by the petitioner and dismissed it. This conduct would well establish the ill motive of the 2nd respondent against the petitioner. Thus, he prays for interference.7.In response, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that, the persons serving in the Government service is expected to obey the orders of Superiors. When a transfer order is effected, petitioner has no right to say that he would receive the transfer order only after consulting the Union. If this sort of representation is entertained, it would upset the 6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.24164 and 24165 of 2010administration of public offices. On a mercy petition filed petitioner, punishment was reduced from withholding of two increments into one increment. Thus, he prays for dismissal of this Writ Petition.8.Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.9.From the records produced and the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it is seen that transfer order was issued to the petitioner in Memo.No.05049/Adm.I(4)/F.Typ./2007 dated 16.02.2007. Transfer order reads that the individuals have to report for duty to the respective Stations after getting proper relief from their present Office. Petitioner was relived on 22.02.2007 vide Memo.No.350/Adm.II(1)/2007 dated 20.02.2007 from the office of the Superintending Engineer/P& A, Mettur Thermal Power Station/Mettur Dam. On the same day, he reported to duty at the office of Executive Engineer/S & I, Mettur Thermal Power Station, Mettur. 10.It is a specific case of the petitioner that he did not refuse to receive the transfer order but only informed that, due to family reasons, 7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.24164 and 24165 of 2010he would receive the transfer order after two days. It is no doubt that, a Government servant cannot make such a plea that he would receive the transfer order after two days, due to family circumstances or any other matter. But what has to be considered is that whether this refusal amounts to willful misconduct as defined under Rule 19(1) of Standing orders of the non-clerical workmen.11.For better understanding, Rule 19(1) of the Standing orders is extracted herein under,“Willful insubordination or disobedience whether alone or in combination with another or others of a lawful and reasonable order of a superior.”12.Petitioner's case is that the transfer order came all of a sudden and he had some family issues and therefore, he sought two days time for receiving the transfer order after consulting with the Union. Within 6 days of transfer order, he joined in the new Station as well. Therefore, I am of the view that, the refusal to receive the transfer order immediately will not be considered as willfull insubordination or disobedience. 8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.24164 and 24165 of 201013.From the records produced, I find that, the Disciplinary Authority overruled the findings of the Enquiry Officer exonerating the petitioner from all the charges and imposed punishment of withholding two increments. Petitioner filed Appeal against the punishment. Appeal ought to have disposed by some other officer, but the same Disciplinary Authority who overruled the findings of the Enquiry Officer, dismissed the Appeal and imposed the punishment. It is against the service jurisprudence and contrary to law and therefore, this Court is of the view that, there is a valid ground made out to believe that the respondents have acted with ill motive against the petitioner.14.It is pertinent to refer to the letter received from the Chief Engineer, Chennai to the Chief Engineer, Mettur to confirm that the same Disciplinary Authority had imposed punishment and also dismissed the Appeal. The relevant portion of the letter reads as follows: “ghh;itapy; Fwpg;gpl;l foj;jjpy; bgwg;gl;l jpU/f/kzp/jl;lr;jh;. cjhpfs; kw;Wk; bghUl;gl;oay;/nkl;Lh; mth;fspd; fUiz kDtpid ghprPypf;Fk; bghGJ md;dhh; kPJ xG';F eltof;if nkw;bfhs;sg;gl;L 23/05/2008 ehspl;l fhuzk; nfl;g[ Fwpg;ghizapy; cj;njr jz;lidahf ,uz;L“ 9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.24164 and 24165 of 2010Mz;LfSf;fhd Mz;L Cjpa cah;it gpd; tpist[fsd;wp epWj;jp itj;jy; vd;w jz;lidia tH';fyhk; vd;W Kot[ nkw;bfhz;l” nkw;ghh;it bghw;ahsUk; kDjhuhpd; nky; KiwaPL kDit ghprPyid bra;J. kDit js;Sgo bra;j jiyikg; bghwpahsh;/nkl;Lh; mdy; kpd; epiyak;/nkl;Lh; mth;fSk; xnu egh; vdj; bjhpatUfpwJ/ nkYk; ,J Fwpj;J kDjhuh; jdJ fUiz kDtpy; bjhptpj;Js;shh;/ mg;gog;gl;l epfH;t[ ,t;bthG';F eltof;ifapy; epfH;e;jpUg;gpd; mJ thhpa tpjpfSf;F KuzhdJ/vdnt. ,e;epfHpt[ Fwpj;J j';fspd; gjpy; kDjhuhpd; fUiz kDit ghprPypf;f mtrakhfj; njitg;gLtjhy; cldoahf ,J Fwpj;J jh';fs; ,j;Jld; ,izj;J mDg;gg;gLk; nfhg;g[fis Muha;e;J jf;f gjpYld; jpUg;gp ,t;tYtyfj;jpw;F mDg;gp itf;FkhW nfl;Lbfhs;fpnwd;/”15.It is clear from this letter that the disciplinary Authority has acted against the rules of Board and dismissed the appeal. Thus in view of the reasons aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the Disciplinary Authority had ill motive against the petitioner, and reversed the findings of the Enquiry Officer, imposed punishment and dismissed the Appeal filed by the petitioner and therefore, his orders are liable to be set aside and accordingly, the order dated 19.08.2008 passed by the 2nd respondent in Ku.Aa.No.031421/186/Ni.Pi.1(5)/Ko.Thani/2008 and the order dated 30.10.2008 passed by the 1st respondent in 10/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.24164 and 24165 of 2010Ku.Aa.No.031421/186/Ni.Pi.1(5)/Ko.Thani/2008 in W.P.No.24164 of 2010 are set aside and quashed. The order passed by the 2nd respondent in Memo No.038219/139/G29/G291/2007 dated 20.11.2009/2.12.2009 in W.P.No.24165 of 2010 is also quashed.16.Consequently, respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to join in his promoted post as Assistant(Accounts), on the basis of the approved panel containing the names of 829 persons, including the petitioner's name in Serial No.817 with necessary seniority, monetary and all other attended benefits, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. 17.With the above directions, these Writ Petitions are allowed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.05.01.2024Index:Yes/NoSpeaking order/Non-speaking ordergdG.CHANDRASEKHARAN, J.11/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.24164 and 24165 of 2010gdTo1.Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Represented by its Chief Engineer, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Mettur Thermal Power Station, Mettur Dam, Salem District.2.The Superintending Engineer, Mettur Thermal Power Station, Mettur Dam, Salem District. 3.Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Represented by its Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 800, Anna Salai, Chennai – 2.4.The Chief Engineer (Personnel), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 800, Anna Salai, Chennai – 2.5.The Superintending Engineer (P&A), Mettur Thermal Power Station, Mettur Dam, Salem District.W.P.Nos.24164 and 24165 of 201005.01.202412/12