Authority: Madras High Court, Division Bench (Justices S. M. Subramaniam & N. Senthilkumar)

Order Date: 09-09-2026

Case Overview

  • Appellant: K.S. Mani, joined Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (now TANGEDCO) as Assistant Engineer on 20‑10‑1976, later promoted to Executive Engineer.
  • Respondents: The Board, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd. (TANGEDCO) and its Chairman & Managing Director.
  • Disciplinary proceedings were initiated under Regulation 8(b) of the TNEB Employees’ Discipline and Appeal Regulations; appellant was barred from superannuation retirement on 30‑04‑2006.
  • Charge Memo No. 31516/A5/A52/2006‑21 dated 12‑05‑2008 alleged three offences:

1. Acquisition of movable and immovable properties worth Rs 10,74,863 between 23‑12‑1998 and 29‑07‑2004 disproportionate to known income.

2. Failure to obtain prior sanction for son’s receipt of house sites and houses (violation of Regulation 9(1)).

3. Failure to disclose acquisition of properties in 2002 (violation of Regulations 13(1) & 13(2)).

  • An earlier charge memo dated 05‑03‑2005 with two similar charges was dropped after the appellant’s explanation.
  • An enquiry officer conducted an oral enquiry; the appellant participated, submitted explanations but produced no documentary evidence. The enquiry report found all charges proved.
  • The disciplinary authority issued a removal order dated 19‑02‑2011 (Permanent CMD TANGEDCO Proceedings No. 29).
  • The appellant appealed to the first respondent on 23‑03‑2011; the appeal was rejected on 28‑09‑2011.
  • In WP No. 26572 of 2011, the High Court on 04‑02‑2013 set aside the removal and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.
  • The Board again rejected the appeal on 20‑05‑2013; the appellant filed the present writ appeal (WA No. 2434 of 2023) seeking reinstatement and retirement from 30‑04‑2006.
  • The Court examined Regulation 8(b) procedural requirements, the burden of proof, and cited Supreme Court judgments (State of Karnataka v. Umesh, 2022; Chatrapal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024) emphasizing the limited scope of judicial review of departmental inquiries.
  • The Court concluded that the appellant failed to produce documentary proof of income; oral evidence was insufficient; the enquiry complied with natural‑justice requirements.

Final Outcome

  • The writ appeal is dismissed; the removal order dated 19‑02‑2011 stands.
  • No costs were awarded to either party.

Topics: Disciplinary Proceedings, Public Utility Employment