M NATARAJAN Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in the present case challenges the order dated 10. 11. 2006 issued by the Chief Engineer, Distribution, Vellore, retaining the petitioner in service in terms of Regulations 17 (f) of the TNEB Service Regulations.

(2.) THE petitioner was to retire on 30. 11. 2006 on reaching the age of his superannuation. But, he was not allowed to retire since an enquiry into a non-departmental criminal offence was under investigation. It is seen from the records that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case in F. I. R. No. 2/2006 dated 14. 2. 2006. Subsequently, a final report was filed before the Judicial Magistrate Court No. I, Poonamallee under Section 173 (3) of Cr. P. C. , for offences under Sections 498 A, 506 Part II, 109, 34, 420, 465, 468 read with 271 I. P. C. The petitioner was arrayed as A2 and in the final report and the petitioner was charged as follows in that report:-

(3.) HOWEVER, Mr. UM. Ravichandran, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his case does not fall under Regulation 17 (f ). He took pains to explain that the criminal misconduct mentioned under Regulation 17 (f) (ii)relates to a criminal misconduct which as per the Explanation is one defined under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Therefore, in as much as the petitioner had not committed any offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act or any misconduct relating to such an offence, the infraction of Regulation 17 (f) is misconceived. But is must be stated that Regulation 17 (f) (iv) relates to any kind of complaint of criminal offence which is under investigation or trial and that an employee will not be allowed to retire on reaching the age of superannuation and that subregulations do not refer to corruption cases only.