Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 10 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: S. Anandakrishnan, Executive Engineer (Operation), 230 KV Athipattu Sub‑Station, Chennai.
  • Respondents: 1) The Chairman cum Managing Director, The Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd. (TNEB); 2) The Secretary, TNEB.
  • Petition: Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of certiorari to quash disciplinary orders dated 12 January 2017 (Proceedings No. 17), 27 May 2017 (Proceedings No. 14) and a Mercy Petition order dated 30 October 2017.
  • Allegations: Petitioner was charged under Regulation 27(A) for travelling to China twice without a No‑Objection Certificate (NOC) and under Regulation 16 for allegedly sharing TNEB documents with Herodex Powers System Private Ltd.
  • Charge Memo: Dated 29 June 2016; suspension imposed on 25 May 2016.
  • Petitioner’s Defence: Submitted detailed explanation on 20 July 2016, claimed trips were for medical treatment of severe knee pain, cited medical certificates dated 5 June 2015 and discharge summary dated 18 August 2015, argued NOC could not be obtained due to urgency.
  • Procedural History: Suspension revoked on 10 January 2017; enquiry officer appointed on 9 September 2016; enquiry report submitted on 13 October 2016 (Charge‑1 proved, Charge‑2 not proved); further representation filed on 19 November 2016; appeal rejected on 27 May 2017; mercy petition rejected on 30 October 2017; disciplinary order imposing three‑year stoppage of increment dated 12 January 2017.
  • Respondents’ Position: Asserted compliance with regulations, that petitioner violated Regulation 27(A) by travelling without NOC, that procedural safeguards were afforded, and that the punishment was proportionate.

Court’s Analysis

  • The Court reiterated that its jurisdiction under Article 226 is limited to verifying compliance with regulations and principles of natural justice; it cannot act as a second appellate authority or re‑appreciate evidence.
  • Cited precedents: B.C. Chaturvedi vs Union of India, State of Andhra Pradesh vs Chitra Venkata Rao, Union of India vs Subrata Nath, Union of India vs P. Gunasekaran, and Indian Oil Corporation vs Ajit Kumar Singh, emphasizing that a High Court may not substitute its findings for those of the disciplinary authority unless the enquiry is perverse or mala‑fide.
  • Evaluated petitioner’s medical evidence: passport copy showed masked travel dates; visa to China was issued on 9 June 2015, whereas the medical certificate was dated 5 June 2015, indicating the certificate preceded the visa.
  • Noted absence of doctor’s name, registration number, and detailed treatment information in the certificates, rendering them unreliable.
  • Determined that even if the first trip (21 June 2015 – 30 June 2015) could be viewed as a medical emergency, the second trip (12 August 2015 – 9 August 2015) lacked any justification and no attempt was made to obtain or request an NOC.
  • Concluded that the disciplinary authority had acted within the framework of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Employees Conduct Regulations and that the punishment was not arbitrary.

Final Outcome

  • The writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merit.
  • Costs of Rs 10,000 are imposed on the petitioner, payable to the High Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks of receipt of the order.
  • All connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Topics: Disciplinary Proceedings, Court Review