IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

W.P.No. of 2023

E.Irulappan,
S/o.A.Edamalai,
G 3, B 2, Sindur Court,
Mogappiar East, Chennai- 600037. …
Petitioner

Vs.

1. Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution

Corporation Limited,
represented by Chairman-cum-Managing Director,

2. The Secretary,
Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Limited
TANGEDCO,
No.144, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600002.
… Respondents

AFFIDAVIT

I, E.Irulappan, S/o. A.Edamalai, Hindu, aged about 61 years,

residing at G 3, B 2, Sindur Court, Mogappiar East, Chennai-
600037, do solemnly sincerely affirm and state as follows:-

1. I humbly submit that I am the Petitioner herein and as such

well acquainted with the facts and circumstances.

2. I humbly submit that I was appointed as a Typist in the 1 st

Respondent’s Board (TNEB) on 26.04.1984 and thereafter I
was promoted to the post of Assistant in the year 1997.
Later, I was promoted to the post of Superintendent in the
 year of 2009 and as Assistant Personal Officer in the year of
2012 and as Personnel Officer in the year of 2015 and as
Senior Personnel Officer/Recruitment dated 30.06.2017
respectively. After successive promotions, I served as a
Senior Personal Officer/Inspection, Administrative Branch,
which is a non-sensitive post on 19.09.2018.

3. I humbly submit that the 2nd Respondent had issued a memo

No. 16526/A2/A22/2022 dated 27.06.2022 regarding the
list of officers who were retiring from the service of the
TANGEDCO/TANTRANSCO on attaining the age of
superannuation from the month of July to December 2022
was announced. According to which I was supposed to retire
from the service by 31st August 2022. It is also pertinent to
note that the Head of Offices and Pension sanctioning
Authorities of the 2nd respondent were intimated to take
necessary actions to finalize the retirement benefits in time
and the copy of memo dt.27.06.2022 was sent to The
Inspector General of Police (Vigilance) TANGENDCO,
Chennai-600002.

4. I further submit Senior Personnel Officer/Recruitment,

TANGEDCO had issued an Office Order No.563, dated
06.07.2022 notifying that I have to retire from the service of
TANGEDCO on 31.08.2022. Subsequently, the 2nd
respondent issued a D.O Letter No. 27199/A8/A81/2022-1,
dated 13.07.2022 to me for sanctioning of pension and
benefits in which they requested me to send a pension &
benefits proposal for sanction. Simultaneously, I made a
 submission the same with acknowledge to the 2 nd respondent
dated 01.08.2022.

5. I humbly submit that the Tamilnadu Electricity Board had

conducted a retirement function which was held on
30.08.2022 at of 4.00 p.m. for the officers who were retiring
from the service of the TANGEDCO on 31.08.2022 as the
said day was a government holiday on account of “Ganesh
Chaturthi” festival. The Director of Generation, TANGEDCO
honored me and appreciated me for my unblemished record
of service with an award of three symbols viz., TNEB Ltd.,
TANGEDCO and TANTRANSCO with my name, photo,
designation, date of joining and date of retirement.

6. I further submit that while I was returning to my residence

after the ceremony, to my shock and surprise, a suspension
order was issued to me at an unofficial time of 10.00 p.m. by
the 1st respondent vide Memo No. 33988/A5/A51/2022-1,
dated 30.08.2022 instead of receiving my relieving order. The
said order alleged that an Inquiry into the grave charges and
misconducts into the same has being contemplated. Without
any reasons, the said suspension memo dated 30.08.2022
was issued.

7. I humbly submit aggrieved by the arbitrary actions of the

Respondents I preferred a Writ Petition before this Hon’ble
High Court in W.P 28925 of 2022 seeking to quash the
Memo No. 33988/A5/A51/2022-1, dated 30.08.2022 issued
by _ Respondent and the same was reserved for orders on .
8. While so, __Respondent had framed charges against me vide
memo no. 33988/A5/A51/2022-10 dt 19.08.2023 alleging
that I had issued transfer and posting orders of certain
persons for illegal gratifications and have also received a
share amount of Rs.70,000/- as illegal gratification from One
Mr. Narayanamoorthy. It is also not out of place to mention
that the Respondents did not take any further action with
respect to my suspension till I filed the above said Writ
Petition.

9. I further submit that after receipt of memo no.

33988/A5/A51/2022-10 dt 19.08.2023, I filed a letter dt
17.09.2023 whereby I had categorically denied all the
charges and requested a copy of necessary documents
annexed in the charge sheet and other relevant documents
pertaining to my case to prove my innocence. Consequently,
the Respondent issued a memo no. 33988/A5/A51/2022-22
dt 16.10.2023 wherein the documents except that of the
essential document of narayanamoorthy was not provided
which consider as alleged process of crime.

10. I further submit that the said charges are completely

baseless with an iota of evidence and the entire proceedings
are in gross violation of my rights and against the principles
of natural justice and fair trial. The entire proceedings is
motivated and was initiated at the eleventh hour of my
superannuation targeting me and caused severe mental
agony and physical stress.
11. I humbly submit that aforesaid impugned order dated
19.08.2023 is violative of Article 14, 21 and 311 of the
 Constitution of India and the same is liable to be quashed as
illegal.

12. I humbly submit that being an old person and without

having other sources of income and pension benefits, I left
with no other alternate remedy, I am constrained to invoke
the extraordinary Writ Jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court
available under Article 226 Constitution of India. Hence this
Writ petition.

13. I humbly submit it in the above-mentioned circumstances

the impugned orders dated 19.08.2023 passed by the
___Respondent is liable to be quashed on the following
grounds amongst the others;

GROUNDS
A. The Impugned order is against the principles of
natural justice and is liable to be quashed.
B. The impugned order liable to be quashed, since the
Respondents have not followed the procedure
prescribed in G.O(Ms) No. 111 dated 11.10.2021, as
per the said GO the Government as a general pr
C. inciple, has observed that issue of suspension orders
on date of retirement of Government Servants should
be avoided by an examination of all cases well in
advance by the said GO was forwarded to the
TANGEDCO and given directions to interpret it strictly
in memo as per No.41093/A18/A181/2021-1 dt
14.12.2021, but in the instant case the Petitioner was
given a suspension order on farewell function i.e
 30.08.2022 in a mechanical manner without
observance of the memo (Supra) which was issued by
the 1st Respondent. Hence the Impugned order is liable
to be quashed.
D. It is further submitted that the said impugned order is
in violation of GO(M)s No. 81 as per rule 3 wherein it
is state
” i. The currency of suspension order should not extent
beyond 3 months if within this period the
Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet is not served
on a delinquent officer/employee.
ii. If the Memorandum of Charges/ Charge sheet is
served a reasoned order must be passed for order of
suspension”. In the instant case the Petitioner had
filed a writ petition challenging the suspension order
dt 30.08.2022 which is pending for 1 year and
reserved for orders, but the Respondents have
arbitrarily without applying the above clauses, have
unlawfully kept the Petitioner under suspension till
date. Hence the Impugned order is liable to be
quashed.
E. It is further submitted that the impugned order which
has been issued by the 2nd Respondent after one year
of suspension of Petitioner is solely based on Annexure
III which reflects irrelevant death certificates of the
Politician and General Public, irrelevant documents
and wrong documentary evidence which is no way
connected to the Petitioner or his work, due to which
the Petitioner has applied requesting Annexure III
documents before the competent authority and the
 same, except that of the key document of
Mr.Narayanamoorthy was not served and had deprived
of the Petitioner the essential information pertaining to
his charges which must necessarily be disclosed to the
Petitioner to prove his innocence. This breaks the very
pillars of fair trial. Hence the Impugned Order is liable
to be set aside.
F. It is further submitted that after the receipt of
irrelevant documents the Petitioner has filed his reply
on 25.10.2023 before the 1st Respondent denying the
entire allegations against the Petitioner which was not
even been considered by the 1st Respondent this shows
that the attitude of the superior officer who has power
over the Petitioner, making him dance to his tunes.

G. It is further submitted that the Respondents had not

only initiated the proceedings at the very last moment
of the service of the Petitioner but had also not
proceeded with case till the Petitioner had filed his
case in Writ Petition. The entire proceedings are
conducted arbitrarily and on baseless charges hence
the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

H. It is further submitted that as per the Charge I of the

Impugned Order the Petitioner was charged of
misconduct, for alleged illegal gratification from Mr.
JeyaKrishnan and C Dhanasekaran for transfer and
postings through G Narayanamoorthy, though there
was no direct link between the Petitioner and the said
Jeyakrishnan & C Dhanasekaran and the Respondent
 have not only furnished any documents regarding the
same but have failed to establish any nexus between
the Persons involved, incidents and Petitioner to the
said allegation of illegal gratification and hence liable
to be quashed.
I. It is further submitted that with respect to postings
and transfers of P Jeyakrishnan and C Dhansekaran,
the Petitioner has no role to play as the during the
period of posting of the above-mentioned persons as he
was not the superior officer nor the signing authority
for their transfers. Hence the charges are not
sustainable and there were no actions taken against
the authorities who have signed the transfer note files.
Therefore the Impugned order is liable to be quashed.
J. It is submitted that the Petitioner has never acted in
violation of the any laws or rules and have in fact have
always acted in accordance of the TNEB Employees
Conduct Regulations. Further the allegation that the
Petitioner has acted in violation with the Provisions of
3(A) TNEB Employees Conduct Regulations are
baseless and without any proof. Hence the Impugned
Charges are liable to quashed.
K. It is further submitted that during the inquiry
conducted by the DSP Vigilance, the Inquiry officer
himself orally admitted that none of the documents are
relevant and the Petitioner has no link nor connection
with any of the charges or incidents. Hence the
Impugned order is liable to quashed.
L. It is further submitted that the allegations mentioned
in the Suspension Order dt 21.06.2023 and the
 charges mentioned in Impugned Order dt 19.08.2023
are completely different and hence liable to be
quashed.
M. It is further submitted that the Petitioner initially
approached the Former Secretary TANGEDCO
Regarding the charges, the Former Secretary has not
only evaded the queries of the Petitioner but has also
made bold statements that an Disciplinary actions are
absolute power of the Department and they are not
accountable to anyone and can proceed even if there
are no evidences. IT is clear from the above fact that
this entire disciplinary proceedings are motivated and
initiated on personal vendetta. Hence the same is
liable to be quashed.
N. It is further submitted that the manner the entire
proceeding and inquiry is conducted is completely
arbitrary and are delayed intentionally due to personal
grudges of certain individuals. Hence the Impugned
order is liable to be quashed.
O. It is further submitted that in the Report of DGP
vigilance of TANGEDCO dt 13.04.2023 that an inquiry
was made with One Mr.Savadamuthu who had already
died on 31.12.2021, which is improbable and bizarre
and the very instance proves that the enquiry is a
façade to harass the Petitioner for Vengeance and
hence liable to be set aside.

Therefore, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be

pleased to issue a Writ of CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS or any
 other appropriate writ or order or direction to call for the records
issued by the 1st Respondent Impugned order dated 19.08.2023 in
Memo No.33988/A5/A51/2022-10, and to quash the same and
consequently, direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to
retire from service from the post of Senior Personnel
Officer/Inspection with effect from the date of retirement (i.e.,)on
31.08.2022 and to settle the retirement benefits to the petitioner as
on the date of retirement and pass such other/further order or
orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper on the facts
and in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

Solemnly affirmed at Chennai this Before

me,
the day of December 2023 having
signed his name in my presence. Advocate,
Chennai