C.S. Padmanabhan v. The Chief Engineer (Distribution) Chennai Region (TNEB) K.K.R. Ramasamy Buildings 800, Anna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED:07.09.2007CORAM:THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANIWRIT PETITION NOs.2886, 2887 of 2000 & 18421 of 2001.N.P. Jayakumar.. Petitioner in WPs.2886/2000& 18421/2001C.S. Padmanabhan.. Petitioner in WP.2887/2000Vs.1. The Chief Engineer (Distribution) Chennai Region (TNEB) K.K.R. Ramasamy Buildings 800, Anna Salai, Chennai 2.2. The Superintending Engineer Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle/West, Anna Nagar, Chennai-40...Respondents in all WPs.3. The Superintending Engineer Chengalpattu Electricity Distribution Circle, Chengalpattu 2... R.3 in WP.2886/2000Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for therecords pertaining to the order dated 01.11.99, 01.10.99 and 23.03.2000respectively passed by the 1st respondent in Memo.No.26173/874/BI/98-99,25815/856/BI/98-7 and 011335/470/B-I/1995 respectively and quash the sameand consequently direct the respondents to return back the amount alreadydeducted from the petitioner's salary.For petitioners: Mr. R. NatarajanFor respondents: Mr. M. VaidyanathanCOMMONORDER The petitioner in WPs.2886 of 2000 and 18421 of 2001 is the same.The petitioner in the said writ petitions has been working as a StoreCustodian Grade I under the respondent Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Hewas transferred from Sub-stores, West Korattur to the Central Stores,Thimmavaram, Chengai Electricity Distribution Circle on 07.06.1997,directing him to handover the charge to one C.S.Padmanaban, the StoreSupervisor (Construction), Ambattur. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he has sent a representationto the second respondent on 07.06.1997 requesting to grant 15 days time tohandover the charge in a complete manner. According to the petitioner,the process of handing over the charge commenced on 08.06.1997 and hehanded over the duplicate key to the said C.S.Padmanaban, petitioner inW.P.No.2887 of 2000 keeping the original key with him, which has to behanded over to the said Padmanaban, after completion of all formalities oftaking charges. It is the further case of the petitioner that during thecourse of handing over the charge, on 16.06.1997, after completing hisduty, the said C.S.Padmanaban, the Store Supervisor closed the doors andsealed the lock both in the stores and the gate promptly and went home.However, on the next day, i.e., on 17.06.1997, at 8.00 am the sealed lockwas found broken and some of the materials belonging to the respondentBoard were found missing, about which the Assistant Engineer(Construction), Ambattur lodged a complaint in Korattur Police Station on17.06.1997. The petitioner was suspended from service on 23.06.1997 bythe order of the Executive Engineer, Ambattur regarding the alleged theftoccurred on 16.06.1997 in the Sub-Stores, Korattur. It was, thereafter,the second respondent by his communication dated 28.06.1997, hassanctioned eight working days from 08.06.1997 to 17.06.1997 to handoverthe charge of the Sub-stores, Korattur, to the petitioner in W.P.No.2887of 2000. 3. The petitioner was issued with a charge sheet on 08.07.1997 by theExecutive Engineer on the allegation that he has not handed over the keysto the Store Supervisor C.S.Padmanaban, till the date of theft. Thepetitioner has submitted his explanation on 01.08.1997 to the ExecutiveEngineer, denying the charges levelled against him and requested him tofurnish materials. The charges were levelled against the petitioner asper the Board's Standing Order Nos.19(iii) and 19(ix), which are asfollows:“19(iii). Theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with theBoard’s property or business.19(ix). Habitual negligence or neglect of work.”According to the petitioner, as per Regulation 11(3) of Chapter III ofTamil Nadu Electricity Board Employees (Discipline and Appeal)Regulations, separate charge should be framed in respect of each chargeand therefore, framing a single charge clubbing two different charges isin violation of the Board’s Regulations. The police complaint in respectof theft has been closed on 09.12.1997 as undetectable.4. It is the case of the petitioner that the Enquiry Officer withoutconsidering the material facts has submitted the finding and on the basisof the Enquiry Officer’s report dated 07.01.1998, the second respondenthas issued a second show cause notice dated 21.04.1998, for which thepetitioner has submitted his explanation on 05.06.1998. The secondrespondent has passed final order dated 04.07.1998, directing the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.50,080/- towards the cost of the stolenproperties and the same should be deducted from the salary of thepetitioner.5. It is, as against the said order of the second respondent, thepetitioner has preferred an appeal to the first respondent on 07.09.1998.In the meantime, he has also sent a representation to the third respondenton 07.09.1998, requesting him not to recover the cost of the stolenproperties pending disposal of the appeal. In spite of the saidrepresentation, the third respondent has made deduction of Rs.1,080/-from the salary of the petitioner for the month of September, 1998 andalso Rs.1,000/- in the months of October and November, 1998 andultimately, on 20.11.1998, the third respondent has rejected the requestof the petitioner for postponement of implementation of the final orderpassed by the second respondent till the disposal of the appeal. It was,against the said order of the third respondent, the petitioner has filedW.P.No.20417 of 1998, which was disposed of by this Court on 09.07.1999with direction to the first respondent to dispose of the appeal dated07.09.1998. Ultimately, the first respondent, by the impugned order dated01.11.1999, has rejected the appeal, as against which the petitioner hasfiled W.P.No.2886 of 2000, on various grounds including, that it isviolative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, arbitraryand illegal and the order is a non-speaking one and against the provisionsof Board’s Regulations and the enquiry itself was conducted without givingsufficient opportunity and so on.6. In respect of the same incident, against the petitioner inW.P.No.2887 of 2000, who was working as a Deputy Stores Officer, AmbatturSub-stores, who was also given an additional charge of Sub-stores,Korattur, a charge was framed on 08.07.1997, alleging that he has notreceived the key of the Stores from the petitioner in W.P.No.2886 of 2000,viz., N.P.Jayakumar, even after the superior officers directed him to takeover charge from him and that he did not insist the said Jayakumar to handover key, nor informed the fact to the officer concerned. In themeantime, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 23.06.1997 and thepetitioner submitted his explanation on 04.08.1997, denying the chargeslevelled against him. The Executive Engineer, Ambattur ordered to conductenquiry against the alleged charges by order dated 27.08.1997. TheSuperintending Engineer, CEDC/West, Anna Nagar issued an order dated22.09.1997 stating that the order of suspension issued against thepetitioner was revoked and further stating that the petitioner was deemedto have been relieved from duty on 30.06.1997, due to retirement onattaining the age of superannuation. 7. Based on the findings of the Enquiry Officer, a second show causenotice was issued to the petitioner on 21.04.1998. In the meantime, thePolice authorities, on 09.12.1997 reported that the theft was undetectableand the case was closed. The petitioner has given a detailed explanationon 02.06.1998, for the second show cause notice. Ultimately, the secondrespondent, Superintending Engineer has passed the order dated 04.06.1998, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.50,080/- towards the cost ofthe properties stolen, stating that the same will be deducted from hisretirement benefits. It is the case of the petitioner that the repeatedrepresentations by himself as well as the petitioner in W.P.No.2886 of2000, to appoint a competent watchman, was not heeded to by therespondents. It is also the case of the petitioner that one duplicate keywas with him under the direction of the Assistant Executive Engineer(construction), Ambattur. Ultimately, the second respondent issued thefinal order on 4.7.1998 for recovery of the amount. As against the same,the petitioner has filed an appeal to the first respondent on 5.8.1998.In spite of his request to the second respondent not to recover theamount pending appeal, the second respondent has withheld the amount ofRs.50,080/-. Ultimately, the first respondent rejected the appeal ofthe petitioner by order dated 1.10.1999 as against which the present writpetition is filed on the same grounds as raised by the writ petitioner inW.P.No.2886 of 2000.8. W.P.No.18421 of 2001 is filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.2886 of2000, challenging the impugned order of the first respondent dated23.3.2000 and also for a direction to return the amount already deductedfrom the petitioner’s salary. That was the case relating to the periodthe petitioner was working as Stores Custodian Grade-I at Korattur SubStores of the respondent, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Four charges wereframed against him on 16.6.1997 in respect of various shortages and alsofabrication of Transport Note by altering the date of order to adjustsome of the shortages along with lot of discrepancies found duringsurprise inspection. The petitioner has submitted his explanation on30.6.1997. A second show-cause notice was issued on 23.6.1998 for whichalso the petitioner has submitted his detailed explanation on 24.10.1998and after the enquiry, final order was passed on 24.2.1999 by theSuperintending Engineer, viz., the second respondent ordering recovery ofsome of Rs.37,375.40 from his salary. 9. The petitioner has preferred an appeal on 15.4.1999 before thefirst respondent and pending appeal, the petitioner has also filedW.P.No.7447 of 1999 challenging the recovery order and the writ petitionwas admitted and there was an order of injunction and subsequently, thewrit petition was disposed of on 8.9.1999 with a direction against thefirst respondent to dispose of the appeal dated 15.4.1999 within six weekstime and to recover at the rate of Rs.500/- from the salary of thepetitioner. Subsequently the first respondent has passed the final orderon 23.3.2000, against which the petitioner has filed the present writpetition. The petitioner is challenging the said order of the firstrespondent on the ground that various charges cannot be clubbed togetheras per the Regulation 11.3 of Chapter III of the Tamil Nadu ElectricityEmployees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, apart from the violationsof the principles of natural justice. 10. The respondents have filed counter affidavits in W.P.No.2886 of2000 and W.P.No.18421 of 2001. It is the case of the respondents that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner in W.P.2886 of 2000 was directed to hand over the charge on histransfer, to the petitioner in W.P.No.2887 of 2000 and the petitionersfailed to hand over and take over charge in a proper manner and it is,because of their negligence, it has resulted in theft. It was afterenquiry, having found the amount of loss caused by way of theft ofarticles could not be recovered, the respondents have directed to recover50% of cost from each of the petitioners. A second show-cause noticewas given and after conducting enquiry in a proper manner, recovery waspassed and the appeal was disposed of in accordance with law. It was thecase of the respondents that the petitioners have never demanded anydocument, however, the petitioners were allowed to peruse the records.Therefore, it cannot be said that the enquiry was not conducted inaccordance with the principles of natural justice. It is the case of therespondents that the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Employees (Disciplineand Appeal) Regulations are applicable only to officers of Class I andClass II and the petitioners are governed by the Standing Orders for theworkmen applicable to the clerical department in the Tamil NaduElectricity Board. The appellate authority has also passed a detailedorder which does not require any interference. 11. In respect of W.P.No.18421 of 2001, the respondents stated that asper the duties and responsibilities of the Store Custodian under the BoardProceedings dated 6.6.1995, the issue of materials shall be made onlyagainst proper requisition and in case of emergency, materials can beissued only on the authorization of the officer not below the rank ofAssistant Executive Engineer and such issue of materials shall be only onthe Transport Note and the same must be regularized within six days. Inthe present case, the materials have been issued without properrequisition or without any authorization of the competent authority andthe petitioner has also fabricated the transport note and the quantity ofmaterials have been altered. In these circumstances, four serious chargeswere framed against the petitioner and fair opportunity was given to thepetitioner who also attended the enquiry and he was furnished with copiesof the records. The Enquiry Officer has submitted his findings and it wasbased on the Enquiry Officer’s report and based on the past service of thepetitioner, a show-cause notice was issued for recovery of Rs.37,375.40and ultimately, final order came to be passed on 24.2.1999. The appealpreferred by the petitioner to the first respondent was also consideredand the same was rejected. The petitioner is bound by the Tamil NaduElectricity Board Standing Orders for workmen engaged in clerical work. 12.Mr.R.Natarajan, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.2886and 2887 of 2000 relating to the handing over and taking over of thecharge of the Sub-Stores, Korattur after the transfer of the petitionerin W.P.No.2886 of 2000, would submit that on the orders of transfer passedagainst the petitioner, he has asked for 15 days time from 7.6.1997, butthe second respondent has in fact, sanctioned 8 working days to thepetitioner in W.P.No.2886 of 2000 to hand over the charge of Sub-Stores,Korattur to the petitioner in W.P.No.2887 of 2000. He would also submitthat inasmuch as the charge against the petitioner is not relating to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ theft, but only on the basis of alleged misconduct in handing over andtaking over of keys, the time has been extended even before the happeningof theft, and therefore, the charge on the face of it is unsustainable.He would also submit that the petitioner in W.P.No.2887 of 2000 has infact retired from service and there is absolutely no criminal caseagainst the petitioners in respect of this case. He would further submitthat in respect of W.P.No.18421 of 2001, there is absolutely no chance offabrication of Transport Notes and therefore, the decision arrived at byboth the authorities against the petitioners herein as if the petitionerin W.P.18421 of 2001 has manipulated the records is only perverse. 13. On the other hand, Mr.Vaidyanathan, learned counsel for theElectricity Board would submit that the petitioners cannot complain ofthe violation of the principles of natural justice since the enquiry hasbeen conducted by following the due process. He would also submit thatinasmuch as the authorities have followed the Standing Orders and arrivedat a conclusion after giving opportunity, this Court cannot reappreciatethe evidence in the domestic enquiry and therefore, he prayed for thedismissal of all the writ petitions.14. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well asthe respondents and perused the entire records. 15. Since the writ petitions in W.P.Nos.2886 and 2887 of 2000 relateto the same charge, I proposed to take up those writ petitions at thefirst instance. The charge framed against the petitioners in the saidwrit petitions is that on 7.6.1997, when the petitioner in W.P.No.2886 of2000 was transferred from Sub Stores, Korattur to the Central Stores,Chengalpattu, he was directed to hand over the charge to the petitioner inW.P.No.2887 of 2000, who was the Store Supervisor at Korattur and thepetitioner in W.P.No.2886 of 2000 has failed to hand over the charge andthe petitioner in W.P.No.2887 of 2000 has failed to receive the keys andthus, resulted in the theft committed on 16.6.1997, causing loss to theElectricity Board. Therefore, a perusal of the charge shows that thecharge is not as if the petitioners have committed theft, but it is onlyabout the handing over and taking over of keys by the petitionersrespectively. 16. It is true that the petitioner in W.P.No.2886 of 2000 wastransferred on 7.6.1997 and it is the case of the petitioner inW.P.No.2886 of 2000 that he sought 15 days time to complete the handingover of the entire materials since it involved various factors. Thepetitioner has specifically stated in the affidavit filed in support ofthe writ petition that the second respondent, viz., the SuperintendingEngineer, Chennai has sanctioned 8 working days from 8.6.1997 to17.6.1997 to hand over the charge of Sub Stores, Korattur to thepetitioner in W.P.No.2887 of 2000. The said statement made by thepetitioner in W.P.No.2886 of 2000 has not been denied by the respondentsin the counter affidavit. From this, it is clear that the petitionerswere given time by the second respondent up to 17.6.1997 to hand over and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ take over the charge. In the meantime, before the time granted by thesecond respondent expired, on 16.6.1997 night, the occurrence of thefttook place by breaking open the lock in the stores which came to be knownon 17.6.1997. 17. It is also not in dispute that there was no police complaint orany finding through investigation against the petitioners in respect ofthe theft committed in the stores of the respondent Board. In view of thespecific stand taken by the petitioners that the time to hand over thecharge was given up to 17.6.1997, there is absolutely no difficulty tocome to the conclusion that the petitioners cannot be imposed with thecharge of either not handing over or not taking over the keys of thestores. It is relevant to point out that the said charge was framed underthe Clauses 19(iii) and 19(ix) of the Standing Orders, which admittedlyrelate to the theft, fraud and dishonesty in connection with the propertyor business of the Board and habitual negligence or neglect of work. Byapplying the said Standing Orders, on the factual position, which I haveenumerated above, there is absolutely no reason for the respondents toframe such a charge against the petitioners. While the charge itself isrelating to handing over and taking over of keys of the stores, theStanding Orders are relating to the theft, fraud, dishonesty and habitualnegligence which has no connection with the charge levelled against thepetitioners. 18.Even though in normal circumstances, this Court would notinterfere with the validity or otherwise of the disciplinary proceedingsespecially in a domestic enquiry, on the face of the charge framed in thepresent case against the petitioners, in the context of specific statementmade by the petitioner in W.P.No.2886 of 2000 in the affidavit, I am ofthe considered view that the entire disciplinary proceedings and thedomestic enquiry has been proceeded with a totally misconception, whichcertainly deserves to be interfered with. Even assuming that opportunitywas given to the petitioners, it is a glaring case of a totally impropercharge having been framed against the petitioners on the basis of whichrecovery has been made. It is relevant to point out that the firstrespondent in the impugned order has even gone to the extent of sayingthat the non-handing over or taking over of the keys of the stores shouldhave been informed to the authorities before the occurrence of theft,but, on the other hand, the second respondent has granted time to handover the keys up to 17.6.1997 and the occurrence took place on 16.9.1997and hence, it is not understandable as to how such a charge can be imputedagainst the petitioners in the factual context. 19. In view of the above said position, I have no hesitation to cometo the conclusion that the impugned orders of the first respondent dated1.11.1999 in W.P.No.2886 of 2000 and dated 1.10.1999 in W.P.No.2887 of2000 as well as the original orders of punishment passed by the secondrespondent in both the cases are perverse and liable to be set aside. Inview of the same, the writ petitions, W.P.Nos.2886 and 2887 of 2000 areallowed with a direction to the respondents to refund the amount deducted https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ from the salary/terminal benefits of the petitioners within a period offour weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.20.In respect of W.P.No.18421 of 2001, it is certainly standing on adifferent context. It is not a case of handing over or taking over ofcharge and the charges framed against the petitioner in this case are asfollows:“Charge-1: There are shortage of 4,300 meters of 7/2.11 sq.mm. ACSRconductor as per D.R. sheet No.40503 dated 23.5.97 and the value ofthese materials is approximately works out to Rs.30,100/-.Similarly there is also a shortage of 28.5 kgs. Of Aluminium Flatas per D.R. sheet No.10449 dated 16.5.1997. This kind of lapsesconstitutes misconduct as per the standing order No.19(iii)relating to the standing order for workmen engaged in clericaldepartment of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board.Charge-2: There are 15 items of excess materials found in Store asper annexure enclosed which shows clearly the negligence of hisduties. This kind of his misconduct is as per standing order No.19(ix) of standing orders for workmen engaged in clerical departmentof Tamil Nadu Electricity Board.Charge-3: While Thiru N.P.Jayakumar was working as Stores CustodianI Grade in Sub-Stores, Korattur he has indulged in fabrication ofrecords in connivances with the Field Officers/Staff by preparingtransport NoteNo.12632 dated 17.5.1997 on a later date in order toadjust the above said shortage of 4300 meters of ACSR 7/2.11 sq.mmconductor. As all the immediate higher authorities have stated thatno such transaction has been a fabricated one and the transactionsthus made is a clear fictitious one to cover up the shortages.This misconduct of the employee is as per Standing Order No.19(iii)of Standing Orders for workmen engaged in clerical departments ofthe Tamil Nadu Electricity Board.Charge-4: Similarly the shortage of 28.5 kgs. Of Aluminium Flatdetected in the Stores was also found to have been adjusted throughan earlier Requisition No.458842 dated 24.2.1997 of the JuniorEngineer/J.J.Nagar/West Section. On verification it is also foundthat the quantity intended is only 5 Nos. but the same wascorrected as 6 Nos. without any attestation either by the intendingOfficer has also confirmed that only 5 Nos. as intended wasreceived by him, more over the same was not entered in the estimatecard. In respect of Requisition No.549891 dated 5.5.97 pertainingto Ambattur Central Section the correction there, it has not beenattested both by the intending officer and countersigning officer.Also the requisition No.458842 dated 24.2.97 was honoured only on9.5.97 (i.e.) after expiry of the currency of the Requisition.”21. The charges framed are serious, which include fabrication ofrecords, and the charges contain various minute details relating to theshortages which occurred during the time when the petitioner was workingas Store Custodian Grade I in Sub-Stores, Korattur. A reference to therecovery order passed by the second respondent 24.2.1999 shows that in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ fact a detailed enquiry was conducted with sufficient opportunity beinggiven to the petitioner and the shortage of materials was found to beproved against the petitioner, the amount of which was quantified to theextent of Rs.37,375.40. Even a second show-cause notice was given to thepetitioner, to which the petitioner has also given his explanation. It isalso seen that the first respondent being the appellate authority has infact considered each and every one of the charges individually and foundon merits that the order of the original authority in imposing thepunishment does not require any interference. Here is a case where twoauthorities have on merits and in substance found that the charges againstthe petitioner are proved and in such circumstances, I do not see anyreason to interfere with the impugned order. 22. It is well settled that in cases of domestic enquiry, it is notthe strict proof of evidence or the principles of criminal law that isapplicable, but the preponderance of evidence is sufficient, as it is heldin B.C.Chaturvedi v. Union of India (1997(4) LLN 65)in thefollowing words:"12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but areview of the manner in which the decision is made. Power ofjudicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receivesfair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which theauthority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of theCourt. When an enquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct bya public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determinewhether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whetherrule of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findingsor conclusions are based on some evidence, the authorityentrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, powerand authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. Butthat finding must be based on some evidence. Neither thetechnical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidenceas defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When theauthority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives supportthere from, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold thatthe delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. TheCourt/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act asappellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arriveat its own independent findings on the evidence. TheCourt/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held theproceedings against the delinquent officer in a mannerinconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violationof statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where theconclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority isbased on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such asno reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunalmay interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould therelief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case.13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts.Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has co- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ extensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature ofpunishment. In a disciplinary enquiry the strict proof of legalevidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant.Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot bepermitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. In Unionof India v. H.C. Goel (1964 (4) SCR 718), this Court held atpage 728 that if the conclusion, upon consideration of theevidence, reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse orsuffers from patent error on the face of the record or based onno evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued. "Moreover, it is repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that the power ofjudicial review of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia is also restricted. In view of the same, the impugned order of thefirst respondent dated 23.3.2000, is confirmed and the writ petition inW.P.No.18421 of 2001 stands dismissed. In the result, W.P.Nos.2886 and 2887 of 2000 are allowed andW.P.No.18421 of 2001 is dismissed. No costs.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarKhTo1. The Chief Engineer (Distribution) Chennai Region (TNEB) K.K.R. Ramasamy Buildings 800, Anna Salai, Chennai 2.2. The Superintending Engineer Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle/West, Anna Salai, Chennai - 40.3. The Superintending Engineer Chengalpattu Electricity Distribution Circle, Chengalpet 2.3 CC To Mr.M.Vaidyanathan, Advocate, SR NO.56393, 56394, 56392.3 CC To Mr.R.Natarajan, Advocate, SR NO.56050, 56051, 56052. WP.NOS.2886,2887/2000 & 18421/2001KSJ(CO)RVL 14.09.2007