Madrasdated High Court · 2025

W.P.No.26279 of 2010 KU.AA.No.000130/70/NIPI2/ONA.2/VUTHA.4/2006-2, dated 27.05.2006, passed by the 2nd respondent and permanent Board's Standing Order (Chairman) No.156, dated 10.05.2007, passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer w.e.f 30.11.2005, with arrears of pay and allowances and all other consequential benefits. For Petitioner : M/s.Y.Kavitha for M/s.P.V.S.Giridhar & Sai Associates For Respondents : Mr.C.Ramkumar ORDERThe Petitioner is before this Court against the Impugned Order dated 10.05.2007 passed by the 1st Respondent, whereby, the 'Mercy Petition' dated 22.06.2006 preferred by the Petitioner against the Appellate Order dated 27.05.2006 of the 2nd Respondent affirming the punishment imposed by the 3rd Respondent vide punishment order dated 09.11.2005 was rejected. 2. The petitioner was working as an 'Assistant Engineer' at the Respondents Department from 05.04.1991. Thereafter, the Petitioner was promoted to the post of 'Assistant Executive Engineer' vide Order 2/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26279 of 2010 dated 27.10.2009. The background of the impugned proceedings is a Charge Memo dated 07.07.2003 issued to the Petitioner with the following charges framed against the Petitioner. Relevant portion of the aforesaid Charge Memo dated 07.07.2003 reads as under:-“B.Sampathkumar son of B.Indirani submitted an application seeking new electricity connection for B.Indirani residing at Nehru Nagar, 8th street on 07.11.2002 to A.Rajakumar, Assistant Engineer. The charges to be levied for giving electricity connection as per the Board is Rs.2,500/- whereas A.Rajakumar has received illegal gratification of Rs.150/- from the Applicant. The Applicant was treated with disrespect. Mr.Shiva who is a Building Contractor applied for electricity connection on 06.10.2002 on behalf of Mr.Chandrasekar who is residing at Nehru Nagar. On that day, his application was refused to be registered. Thereafter, only on 11.10.2002 when an undertaking was made that additional sum will be given, the application was taken on record. For this purpose, Chandrasekar's father gave illegal gratification of Rs.500/- to A.Rajakumar.”3. The Petitioner had replied to the aforesaid Charge Memo dated 07.07.2003 which culminated in an Enquiry Report dated 13.08.2004 of the Enquiry Officer pursuant to the enquiry proceedings. In the Enquiry Report dated 13.08.2004, the Enquiry Officer has come to a conclusion that there was a possibility of the Petitioner having received a sum of Rs.150/- as illegal gratification from B.Sampathkumar, son of B.Indirani 3/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26279 of 2010 through 'Commercial Assistant' namely R.Chinnaraj. Relevant portion of the Enquiry Report dated 13.08.2004 reads as under:-“jd;id tzpf cjtpahsh; jpU/rpd;duh$; mth;fns gjpntLfis bfhLj;J cjtp bghwpahshplk; ifbahg;gk; bgw;W tUk;go Mgp!;gha; nghy; elj;jpdhh; vd;Wk;. cjtpg; bghwpahsh; mt;thW elj;jtpy;iy vd;Wk; g[fhh;jhuh; xj;Jf;bfhs;fpwhh;/jpU/rpd;duh$; - Kd;dhs; tzpf cjtpahsh; jd;id ftdpf;FkhW Twp UP/300/- y";rk; bgw;Wf; bfhz;L AE-iaa[k; ftdpj;Jr; bry;YkhW Twpaij bjhlh;e;J. vt;tst[ juntz;Lk; vd;W mthplnk nfl;L UP/150/- bfhL';fs; vd;W Twpajhy; jhd; AE-aplk; UP/150/- bfhLj;jjhf g[fhh;jhuu; bjhptpj;jhh;/ mjid jpU/A.uh$;Fkhh; mth;fSk; kWf;ftpy;iy/ khwhf nfl;fhky; jhdhf gzk; bfhLj;jJ y";rk; bfhLj;jJ vd;Wk; mJ jz;lidf;FhpaJ vd;W bjhptpj;jhh;/ ,jd; KPyk; mth; y";rk; nehpilahff; nfl;ftpy;iy vd;whYk;. jd; fPH; gzpg[hpa[k; tzpf cjtpahsiug; gad;gLj;jp UP/150/- ifa{l;L bgw;whh; vd;W jPu;khdpf;fg;gLfpwJ/ ,jdhy; jpU/gp/rk;gj;Fkhh; mth;fspd; g[fhhpd;ghy; Rkj;jg; gl;l Fw;wr;rhl;od; Kd;gFjp epUPgzk; Mf tha;g;g[s;sJ vd;W jPu;khdpf;fg;gLfpwJ/”4. Thus, the Enquiry Officer came to a conclusion that the Petitioner could be guilty of the first charge and it was based on a suspicion that the Petitioner may have received illegal gratification of Rs.150/-. The finding of the Enquiry Officer in the aforesaid Enquiry Report was without any direct or indirect evidence to establish that the Petitioner had indeed demanded the illegal gratification from the said B.Sampathkumar through the 'Commercial Assistant', R.Chinnaraj. 4/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26279 of 2010 5. In the light of the above, the 3rd Respondent, as the Disciplinary Authority passed the Impugned Punishment Order dated 09.01.2005, wherein, the 3rd Respondent affirmed the charges in the Enquiry Report dated 13.08.2004 and found the petitioner guilty of the aforesaid charge. 6. By the Impugned Punishment Order dated 09.11.2005, the Petitioner was imposed with a punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect by the 3rd Respondent. Relevant portion of the aforesaid punishment order is extracted hereunder:“,e;epiyapy; tprhuiz eltof;if Fwpg;g[fs;. tprhuiz mjpfhhpapd; Ma;e;j Kot[fs;/ ,e;j xG';F eltof;if rk;ke;jkhd midj;J Mtz';fs;. gzpahshpd; Ke;ija fhy gzp eltof;iffs;. gzpahsuhy; rkh;g;gpf;fg;gl;l tpsf;f';fs; Mfpatw;iw ed;F ftdkhf ghprPyid bra;j fPH;f;ifbahg;gkpl;ltuhy; mtuJ tpsf;f';fs; Vw;g[ilajhf Vw;Wf;bfhs;sj;jf;f tifapy; ,y;iy vd;W KobtLf;fg;gl;L epUPgpf;fg;gl;l Fw;wr;rhl;ow;F jz;lidahf mtUila mLj;J tUk; Mz;L Cjpa cah;it xU tUlj;jpw;F gpd; tpist[fSld; epWj;jp itf;fyhk; vd;W Kot[ bra;Js;shh;/mjd;go jpU/V/,uh$h Fkhh; Kd;dhs; cjtp kpd; bghwpahsh; rptpy; vnuhl;uhk; jw;nghJ cjtp kpd; bghwpahsh; jz;luhk;gl;L Jiz kpd; epiyak; jptUtz;zhkiy kpd; gfph;khd tl;lk; mth;fSila epUPgpf;fg;gl;l Fw;wr;rhl;ow;F jz;lidahf mtuJ mLj;J tUk; Mz;L Cjpa cah;tpid xU 5/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26279 of 2010 tUlj;jpw;F gpd; tpist[fSld; tpLg;g[f;fhyk; cs;spl;L epWj;jp itf;fg;gLfpwJ vd ,Wjp Miz tH';fg;gLfpwJ/nkw;Fwpg;gpl;l jz;lidapd; kPJ nky; KiwaPL bra;a tpUk;g[k; gl;rj;jpy; ,f; Fwpg;ghiz fpilf;fg;bgw;w xU khj fhyj;jpw;Fs; jiyikg; bghwpahsh; tpepnahfk; nfhit mth;fSf;F rkh;g;gpf;fyhk; vd;Wk; mwpt[Wj;jg;gLfpwhh;/”7. The aforesaid punishment order dated 09.11.2005 of the 3rd Respondent was affirmed by the 2nd Respondent/Appellate Authority vide Order dated 27.05.2006 in the appeal preferred by the Petitioner. It is noticed that the Impugned Order dated 25.07.2006 of the 2nd Respondent/Appellate Authority has categorically concluded that the receipt of illegal gratification of Rs.150/- by the Petitioner stands proved. 8. It is in this background, the Petitioner preferred a Mercy Petition before the 1st Respondent which was rejected vide the Impugned Order dated 10.05.2007. Thus, the Petitioner is before this Court challenging the aforesaid Order dated 10.05.2007 of the 1st Respondent. Relevant portion for the Impugned Order dated 10.05.2007 is extracted hereunder: 5.kDjhuh; kDtpy;Twpa[s;s fUj;Jf;fis jiyth;-jkpH;ehL kpd;rhu thhpak; mth;fs; ftdkhf jf;f Mtz';fSkDk;. nfhg;g[fSlDk; ed;F ghprPypj;J kDjhuh; fUiz kDtpy; Vw;Wf; bfhs;sj;jf;f ve;jtpjkhd g[jpa tpsf;fj;ija[k; rkh;g;gpf;ftpy;iy vd;gjhy; kDjhuUf;F nkw;ghh;it bghwpahsh;-nfhit 6/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26279 of 2010 kpd;gfph;khd tl;lk;-khefh; mth;fshy; tH';fg;gl;l jz;lizapy; Fwf;fpLtjw;F ve;jtpjkhd Kfhe;jpuKk; ,y;iybadf; fUjp md;dhhpd; fUiz kDit epuhfhpf;f Kot[ bra;jhh;/6/ mjd;go jpU/m/,uh$Fkhh.; cjtp kpd;bghwpahsh; mth;fspd; 23/06/2006 ehspl;l kD epuhfhpf;fg;gl;L cj;jut[ tH';fg;gLfpwJ/7/ kDjhuu; ,t[tj;jpuitg; bgw;Wf; bfhz;likf;fhd xg;g[jiy mspf;Fk;go mwpt[Wj;jg;gLfpwhh;/9. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Punishment Order dated 09.11.2005 was passed contrary to the express finding in the Enquiry Report dated 13.08.2004, although, the Enquiry Officer has found the petitioner guilty only based on the 'Preponderance of Probability'. 10. It is submitted that the petitioner had not demanded any bribe and there was no evidence to come to a conclusion. It is stated that all that has been proved is that the Petitioner's subordinate namely the said R.Chinnaraj who was functioning as a 'Commercial Assistant' has demanded bribe by stating that the bribe was to be paid to the Petitioner. 11. It is submitted that there is no evidence to show that either the petitioner had instructed the 'Commercial Assistant', R.Chinnaraj to 7/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26279 of 2010 collect bribe on his behalf or was in receipt of any illegal bribe/gratification by the Petitioner directly. It is submitted that the impugned orders passed by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents are based on surmises and conjectures and therefore, are arbitrary. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Respondents are liable to be quashed.12. The learned counsel for the Petitioner would also submit that on account of the punishment imposed on the Petitioner, the Petitioner was denied promotion and the impugned proceedings had a cascading effect on the salary and pensionary benefits payable to the petitioner. Further, it is submitted that the Petitioner attained the age of superannuation, during the pendency of the present Writ Petition. 13. The learned counsel for the Petitioner had placed reliance on the following decisions:-“(i) In the case of State of Uthranjal & Ors Vs. Kharak Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 236, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-15.From the above decisions, the following principles would emerge:(i)The enquiries must be conducted bona fide and care must be taken to see that the enquiries do 8/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26279 of 2010 not become empty formalities.(ii)If an officer is a witness to any of the incidents which is the subject matter of the enquiry or if the enquiry was initiated on a report of an officer, then in all fairness he should not be the enquiry officer. If the said position becomes known after the appointment of the enquiry officer, during the enquiry, steps should be taken to see that the task of holding an enquiry is assigned to some other officer.(iii)In an enquiry, the employer/department should take steps first to lead evidence against the workman/delinquent charged and give an opportunity to him to cross-examine the witnesses of the employer. Only any evidence and asked to give any explanation about the evidence led against him.(iv)On receipt of the enquiry report, before proceeding further, it is incumbent on the part of the disciplinary/punishing authority to supply a copy of the enquiry report and all connected materials relied on by the enquiry officer to enable him to offer his views, if any.(ii) In the case of Nand Kishore Prasad Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors, AIR 1978 SC 1277, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-19.Before dealing with the contentions canvassed, we may remind ourselves of the principles, in point, crystallized by judicial decisions. The first of these principles is that disciplinary proceedings before a domestic tribunal are of a quasi-judicial character; therefore, the minimum requirement of the rules of natural justice is that the tribunal should arrive at its conclusion on the basis of some evidence, i.e., evidential material which with some degree of definiteness points to the guilt of the delinquent in respect of the charge against him. 9/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26279 of 2010 Suspicion cannot be allowed to take the place of proof even in domestic inquiries. As pointed out by this Court in Union of India Vs. H.C.Goel MANU/SC/0271/1963: (1964) ILLJ 38SC, “the principle that are punishing the guilty scrupulous care must be taken to see that the innocent are not punished, applies as much to regular criminal trials as to disciplinary enquiries held under the statutory rules.”(iii) Yoginath D. Bagde Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, (1999) 7 SCC 739, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:44. We fail to appreciate the approach of the Disciplinary Committee which has gone by surmises and conjectures rather than by the evidence-on-record. The statements of Dr.Naranje and that of Mr.Bapat, Advocate have not been taken into consideration by the Disciplinary Committee and it has relied upon the statement of the complainant alone to come to the conclusion that Mr.Bapat, Advocate had assured acquittal provided the complainant withdrew his transfer petitions. 45. The High Court has overlooked another important aspect of the case which is to the effect that Sessions Trials Nos.28 of 1982 and 37 of 1987 were pending in the Court of Sessions Judge, Wardha (Mr S.S. Nikhree), from where these were transferred to the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge (Mr S.T.Kharche) who attempted to proceed substantially with those trials, but Deepak Trimbakrao Deshmukh created all sorts of hindrances and obstacles and ultimately filed a transfer petition (No. 387 of 1988) under Section 409 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the Sessions Court, Wardha, in which various allegations were made against the Presiding Officer, namely, Mr S.T. Kharche, but the transfer application was rejected on 10/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26279 of 2010 5-11-1988 by the Sessions Judge. Thereafter, when those cases were taken up by Mr Kharche, Deepak Trimbakrao Deshmukh filed an application on 8-5-1990 for adjournment to enable him to file vakalatnama of his counsel. On this application, an elaborate order was passed by Mr S.T. Kharche who, however, having regard to the quarrelsome nature of the accused, requested the Sessions Judge, Wardha, to transfer those cases to some other court and consequently both the sessions trials were transferred to the Court of IInd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Wardha, presided over by the appellant. In that Court also, the accused (Deepak Trimbakrao Deshmukh) adopted dilatory tactics to prolong the trial and ultimately gave an application in which he stated that he was certain that "no clean and impartial justice" was going to be done to him in both the sessions trials. This was treated as a contumacious conduct and the appellant passed an order taking cognizance under Section 345 of the Criminal Procedure Code read with Section 228 IPC and detained the accused in custody. He was also issued a notice requiring him to show cause why he should not be punished under Section 345 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The accused did not submit any reply and he was consequently convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs 200 or in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days. The accused, however, deposited the fine in the Court on the same day.14. The learned counsel for the Respondents on the other hand would submit that the impugned orders of the Respondents are well reasoned and do not warrant any interference. It is submitted that the 11/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26279 of 2010 Petitioner was also subsequently promoted and therefore on this count also the impugned orders do not merit any interference. 15. That apart, it is submitted that this Court is only be concerned with decision making process and not the decision per se. It is submitted that the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any procedural irregularities committed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority while confirming the Punishment Order dated on 09.11.2005 vide Order dated 27.05.2006 and in the Order dated 10.05.2007 of the 1st Respondent rejecting the Mercy Petition preferred by the Petitioner.16. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned counsel for the Respondents and also perused the impugned orders passed by the 3rd Respondent as a Disciplinary authority, Order of the 2nd Respondent, the Appellate Authority and the Order dated 10.05.2007 of the 1st Respondent rejecting the Mercy Petition of the Petitioner.12/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26279 of 2010 17. The law on the subject is clear. In the matter of disciplinary proceedings, the Disciplinary Authorities act as quasi-judicial officers and therefore they are not bound by strict rules of evidence. It is sufficient for them to punish a delinquent employee or a government servant based on principles of preponderance of probability. 18. Out of two charges framed against the Petitioner vide Charge Memo dated 07.07.2003 only the first charge was said to have been proved i.e., the petitioner had received illegal gratification of Rs.150/- from the applicant's/complainant's son namely B.Sampathkumar through 'Commercial Assistant', R.Chinnaraj. 19. The Enquiry Report dated 13.08.2004 has only concluded that there is a possibility that the Petitioner may have received the illegal gratification of Rs.150/- from the said B.Sampathkumar, son of the applicant/complainant namely, B.Indirani through the 'Commercial Assistant' R.Chinnaraj. 13/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26279 of 2010 20. However, there are no direct evidence much less than any statement of the complaint B.Sampathkumar that he had indeed directly paid the amount to the Petitioner through R.Chinnaraj. The Respondents cannot impose punishment on the Petitioner based on assumptions, presumptions and conjectures. It is quite possible that the said R.Chinnaraj, 'Commercial Assistant' may have demanded and collected the illegal gratification from the complainant by using the name of the Petitioner. 21. In my view, unless there is substantial evidence which would indicate that the Petitioner had instructed the said Commercial Assistant R.Chinnaraj to collect bribe from the Complainant, punishment cannot be imposed based on assumptions, presumptions and conjectures. A finding of guilt cannot be given based on hypothesis, assumption, presumption and conjectures, based on a mere complaint given by the Complainant. In the facts of the case, the principle of preponderance of probability cannot be said to have been satisfied. Therefore, the punishment imposed on the Petitioner has to be held to be arbitrary and illegal. 14/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26279 of 2010 Consequently, the impugned orders passed by the Respondents are liable to be quashed with consequential relief to the Petitioner. 22. This Writ Petition stands allowed with the above observations. The Respondents are therefore directed to re-work the pay and terminal benefits of the Petitioner within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order and regularize the same by paying the arrears within a period of two weeks thereafter. 23. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. 05.03.2025Index : Yes/NoInternet : Yes/NoSpeaking Order/Non-Speaking OrderNeutral Citation : Yes/Nojas15/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26279 of 2010 To1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.2.The Chief Engineer (Distribution), Coimbatore Region, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Coimbatore – 641 012.3.The Superintending Engineer, Coimbatore Electricity Distribution Circle (Metro), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Coimbatore – 641 012.16/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26279 of 2010 C.SARAVANAN, J.jas W.P.No.26279 of 201005.03.202517/17