M NATARAJAN Vs. CHIEF ENGINEER / DISTRIBUTION, CHENNAI REGION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts in nutshell to be considered for deciding the writ petition is that the writ petitioner was appointed as Technical Assistant in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Junior Engineer Grade-II in the year 1989 and was further promoted to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer. The writ petitioner was placed under suspension initially in proceedings dated 27.04.2010 on the ground that a criminal case was registered against the petitioner under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for demanding and acceptance of bribe of Rs.20,000/- for shifting an electrical post from the complainant / owner's land at Mattanaodai.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner states that the writ petitioner is under continuous suspension for the past about eight years and no action has been taken even to conclude the departmental disciplinary proceedings initiated against the writ petitioner. The criminal case is also still pending and yet to be disposed of by the competent criminal court. The representation submitted by the writ petitioner periodically were not considered by the respondent. Thus, earlier he filed W.P.No.12882 of 2012 and W.P.No.5416 of 2014. The directions given by this Court to review the case of the writ petitioner also entered with an order of rejection in proceedings dated 16.04.2014. Thus, the writ petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents made a submission that it is a trap case and the criminal case was registered by the Police under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Until the criminal case is concluded, the Department will not be in a position to proceed with the departmental disciplinary proceedings. Mr.P.Suresh Kumar, Senior Administrative Officer, Office of the Chief Engineer, Chennai South Region, TNEB, Chennai-2 is present before this Court and informed this Court that there is no independent and sufficient records available on file to proceed against the writ petitioner under the Discipline and Appeal Rules and further actions are to be initiated only based on the judgment to be delivered by the Criminal Court in the criminal case.