THALAPATHI PARTHIBAN Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
LAWS(MAD)-2013-7-389
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on
July 10,2013
THALAPATHI PARTHIBAN
Appellant
VERSUS
SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
ALLEN VS. FLOOD [REFERRED]YOUNG V. BRISTOL AEROPLANE CO. LTD [REFERRED]
HEMANTH KUMAR V. S.N.MUKHERJEE [REFERRED]
A AND J MUCKLOW LTD.,VS. IRC [REFERRED]
WILLIAMS VS. GLASBROOKS BROS. LTD. [REFERRED]
YOUNG V. BRISTOL AEROPLANE CO. LTD. [REFERRED]
ABID MOHD. KHAN V. STATE OF M.P. [REFERRED]
PRATAP SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED]
MORELLE LD. V. WAKELING [REFERRED]
SATINDER SINGH CASE [REFERRED]
KALYANI STORES [REFERRED]
MORVELLE LTD.,VS. WAKELING [REFERRED]
BRYERS VS. CANADIAN PACIFIC STREAMSHIPS,LTD. [REFERRED]
BENGAL IMMUNITY CO. LTD. V. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU V. P.M.BELLIAPPA [REFERRED]
N. DEENADAYALAN V. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,CHENGALPATTU RANGE [REFERRED]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. SUDHANSU SEKAR MISRA [REFERRED]
K.K. NARULA [REFERRED]
GOMTHY VS. STATE [REFERRED]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. KALIKA KUER [REFERRED]
M/S.NICKS (INDIA) TOOLS VS. RAM SARAT [REFERRED]
BHUP NARAYAN JHA V. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS [REFERRED]
UNION OF INDIA V. K.V.JANAKIRAMAN [REFERRED]
GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU V. S. VASUDEVAN [REFERRED]
D.UTHIRAKUMARAN VS. THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED]
R.RAVICHANDRAN VS. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,CHENNAI [REFERRED]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU V. P.M.BALLIAPPA [REFERRED]
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS VS. TARAK NATH GHOSH [REFERRED]
P R NAYAK VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
MAMLESHWAR PRASAD VS. KANHAIYA LAL DEAD [REFERRED]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI VS. GURNAM KAUR [REFERRED]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. BHAJAN LAL [REFERRED]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. P P SHARMA IAS [REFERRED]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. SYNTHETICS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED [REFERRED]
JANATA DAL VS. H.S.CHOWDHARY [REFERRED]
UNION OF INDIA VS. HARI KRISHAN KHOSLA [REFERRED]
UNION OF INDIA VS. W N CHADHA [REFERRED]
U P RAJYA KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI PARISHAD DIRECTOR RAJYA KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI PARISHAD VS. SANJIV RAJAN:NARENDRA KUMAR MALIK [REFERRED]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. BIMAL KUMAR MOHANTY [REFERRED]
UNION OF INDIA VS. DISTRICT JUDGE UDHAMPUR [REFERRED]
UNION OF INDIA VS. DHANWANTI DEVI [REFERRED]
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. B SATYANARAYAN RAO [REFERRED]
D P CHADHA VS. TRIYUGI NARAIN MISHRA [REFERRED]
S M DATTA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED]
GENERAL FINANCE COMPANY VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PUNJAB [REFERRED]
M C ABRAHAM VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED]
UNION OF INDIA VS. PRAKASH P HINDUJA [REFERRED]
SECRETARY OF MINISTRY OF CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZERS GOVERNMENT OF INDIA VS. CIPLA LIMITED [REFERRED]
GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL VS. TARUN K ROY [REFERRED]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. DEVANS MODERN BREWARIES LIMITED [REFERRED]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. NALINIKANTA MUDULI [REFERRED]
NIRMAL JEET KAUR VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED]
CENTRAL BOARD OF DAWOODI BOHRA COMMUNITY VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED]
M P RURAL ROAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. L G CHAUDHARY ENGINEERS [REFERRED]
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD VS. |SIBY GEORGE [REFERRED]
GYAN SINGH PARIHAR VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED]
R RAMACHANDRA NAIDU VS. G N PATTABHI REDDY PRESIDENT PANCHAYAT SAMITHI GANGADHARA NELLORE CHITTOOR [REFERRED]
B B MONDAL VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED]
N DEENADAYALAN VS. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CHENGALPATTU RANGE [REFERRED]
B KARANCHANDRA MOHAN PRASATH, MADURAI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT [REFERRED]
R JEYADOSS GABRIEL VS. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT [REFERRED]
Y. VENKATESWARLU VS. STATE OF MADRAS, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, MADRAS [REFERRED]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Being aggrieved by the impugned order, dated 22.06.2013 passed by the Assistant Executive Engineer (Rural), Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, Srivilliputhur, 2nd respondent herein, suspending the petitioner from service, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition, to quash the same and consequently, he has prayed for a direction to the respondents to reinstate him in service, with all consequential benefits.
(2.)Currently, the petitioner is a Stores Supervisor in the office of the Assistant Executive Engineer (Rural), Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, Srivilliputhur, 2nd respondent herein. According to him, for the last one year, misappropriation has been committed by the 2nd respondent. He also demanded bribe from every consumer, who had applied for new electricity service connection and installation of posts. He has also forced the petitioner to receive bribe from the applicants on his behalf, by saying that he had spent huge money for getting transfer to the office of the 2nd respondent. As the petitioner was not willing to indulge in any such unlawful activity and since he has interest in the department, he has lodged a complaint dated 20.03.2013 against the 2nd respondent to the Vigilance Wing, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation.
(3.)It is the further case of the petitioner that coming to know about the complaint, the 2nd respondent has threatened him to withdraw the complaint, otherwise, he would teach a lesson to him. But the petitioner did not respond to his threat. In the above background, the 2nd respondent has placed the petitioner under suspension, vide impugned order, dated 22.06.2013, alleging that on 08.06.2013, the petitioner had attempted to attack one Mr.Murugan, Commercial Inspector, and on 21.06.2013, that he had scolded the 2nd respondent with unparliamentary words and abused him in the name of his community. It is the case of the petitioner that no such incidents occurred at any point of time and that the allegations are utter-false.
(2.)Currently, the petitioner is a Stores Supervisor in the office of the Assistant Executive Engineer (Rural), Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, Srivilliputhur, 2nd respondent herein. According to him, for the last one year, misappropriation has been committed by the 2nd respondent. He also demanded bribe from every consumer, who had applied for new electricity service connection and installation of posts. He has also forced the petitioner to receive bribe from the applicants on his behalf, by saying that he had spent huge money for getting transfer to the office of the 2nd respondent. As the petitioner was not willing to indulge in any such unlawful activity and since he has interest in the department, he has lodged a complaint dated 20.03.2013 against the 2nd respondent to the Vigilance Wing, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation.
(3.)It is the further case of the petitioner that coming to know about the complaint, the 2nd respondent has threatened him to withdraw the complaint, otherwise, he would teach a lesson to him. But the petitioner did not respond to his threat. In the above background, the 2nd respondent has placed the petitioner under suspension, vide impugned order, dated 22.06.2013, alleging that on 08.06.2013, the petitioner had attempted to attack one Mr.Murugan, Commercial Inspector, and on 21.06.2013, that he had scolded the 2nd respondent with unparliamentary words and abused him in the name of his community. It is the case of the petitioner that no such incidents occurred at any point of time and that the allegations are utter-false.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.