HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR WP No. 30448 of 2026 and WMP No.33418 of 2026 S.P.Chandrasekar ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Chairman and Managing Director TANGEDCO NPKRR Maligai,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
WP No. 30448 of 2026 and
WMP No.33418 of 2026
S.P.Chandrasekar
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Chairman and Managing Director
TANGEDCO
NPKRR Maligai,
No.144, Anna salai
Chennai-600 002
2. The Chief Engineer/Personnel
TANGEDCO
NPKRR Maligai
No.144, Anna salai
Chennai-600 002
..Respondent(s)
Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to include the name of the petitioner in the panel of Assistant Engineers eligible for promotion as Assistant Executive Engineer for the Engineers issued in (Per) CMD proceedings No.09 TANGEDCO dated 25.01.2021 and to promote him as Assistant Executive Engineer with effect from the date of promotion of his immediate junior included therein and to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner herein.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Ravi
For Respondent(S): Mr.S.Rajkumar
Standing Counsel
ORDER
The brief facts that are relevant for the disposal of this writ petition are as under:
1.1. The petitioner herein, who was initially appointed as a Technical Assistant on 08.01.1997 in the respondent corporation, was subsequently promoted as Junior Engineer Grade-II on 31.12.2003 and was further promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer on 13.12.2007. While he was working as Assistant Engineer, on 12.06.2009, the petitioner was trapped by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption and was arrested in connection with the said criminal offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Consequently, he was placed under suspension with effect from 12.06.2009. The said order of suspension was subsequently revoked on 01.03.2019 and he was reinstated into service as Assistant Engineer. The said criminal case that was registered against the petitioner on 12.06.2009 was taken on file as Spl. S.C. No. 13 of 2011 on the file of the Special Court-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu. The said criminal case ultimately ended in convicting the petitioner by a judgment dated 19.06.2023.
1.2. Aggrieved by the said conviction, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 728 of 2023 before this Court, and the said appeal was ultimately allowed by this Court on 18.12.2024, acquitting the petitioner from the charges.
The said order of acquittal has not been challenged by the prosecution, and consequently, the same has attained finality. Consequently, the Superintending
Engineer (North), issued Memo No. 0704/ADM.O/ADM.I/Ads/A.4/F.Rejoin
Duty/25, dated 19.04.2025, and Memo
No.0704-1/ADM.O/ADM.I/ADS/A4/F/Rejoin Duty/25 dated 04.07.2025, regularizing the period of suspension under Regulation 57(B), Ruling (9) and fixing the pay of the petitioner consequent upon the regularization of the period of suspension, respectively.
1.3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is because of the pendency of the above-referred criminal case against the petitioner from the year 2009 onwards, the case of the petitioner was not considered for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer, though the case of the petitioner came up for consideration and fell within the zone of consideration in the year 2021. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, even after the petitioner was acquitted of the said criminal charges by this Court on 18.12.2024, the respondents have not taken any action to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion from the year 2021 on par with his immediate junior, in spite of the petitioner making repeated representations, including representations dated
11.07.2025 and 07.02.2025.
1.4. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the panel of Assistant Engineers eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer in Proceedings vide (Per.) CMD TANGEDCO Proceedings No.09 dated 25.01.2021, and to promote the petitioner to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer with effect from the date of promotion of his immediate junior.
2. In response to the notice issued by this Court, the respondents filed a counter affidavit admitting about the acquittal of the petitioner and the nonconsideration of the case of the petitioner due to the pendency of the said criminal case. However, it is contended that the acquittal of the petitioner from the criminal case will not automatically confer a right for promotion on the petitioner, and it is open to the competent disciplinary authority to initiate or continue disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.
3. It is further stated that, in order to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical), clearance from the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption is also required, and a suitable report was called for from the Superintending Engineer concerned, which disclosed only the pendency of Criminal Appeal No. 728 of 2023. It is also further stated that a detailed report was called for from the Superintending
Engineer, North, on 17.07.2026 and 31.08.2026, to review the
initiation/continuation of departmental proceedings against the petitioner, and the review regarding disciplinary action and clearance from the Vigilance Commission is currently underway, and therefore, the petitioner’s claim cannot be considered automatically with retrospective effect, on par with his immediate junior, as a matter of right.
4. From the above-narrated facts and rival contentions, the only question that would arise for consideration is whether the respondents are under an obligation to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of
Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical) on par with his junior or not.

5. From the tenor of the counter affidavit, what appears is that the respondents are yet to take any decision as to whether any disciplinary proceedings are required to be initiated against the petitioner or not and awaiting clearance from the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, in order to assess the suitability of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical).
6. There is no much dispute on facts. Admittedly, the case of the petitioner was deferred from consideration for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical) in the year 2021 because of the pendency of the criminal case against him. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the case of the petitioner was not considered even after the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal proceedings, in a promotional process undertaken in the year 2025. The respondents are trying to justify their action on the ground that clearance from the Vigilance Commission is awaited.
7. The fact that the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal proceedings as early as 18.12.2024, and the said acquittal has attained finality, is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was denied promotion only because of the pendency of the criminal proceedings, and admittedly, no disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner as on date. Whether the respondents are entitled to initiate any disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner at this length of time in respect of an incident that took place in the year 2009 itself is doubtful. In the absence of any bar to initiate and continue disciplinary proceedings during the pendency of criminal proceedings, the action of the respondents in not initiating any proceedings from the year 2009 till 2025 would show that they are not keen on initiating any disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in respect of the charge which was the subject matter of the criminal proceedings. If that be the case, the respondents cannot deny the right of the petitioner for being considered for promotion on par with his immediate junior for the panel year 2021 merely on the ground of pendency of clearance from the Vigilance Commission.
8. Considering the fact that the petitioner was acquitted as early as
18. 12.2024, and the entire period of suspension was regularized as early as
19. 04.2025, the respondents ought to have taken consequential steps to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical), as his case was deferred due to the pendency of the criminal proceedings at the relevant point of time. But the respondents failed to do so expeditiously. It is also not open for the respondents to keep the matter pending on the ground that they are awaiting a report from the Vigilance Commission or from the Superintending Engineer, etc., and it is for the respondents to take all necessary steps expeditiously and consider the case of the petitioner for promotion on par with his immediate junior.
9. In the light of the above, this Court does not see any justification on the part of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical) consequent upon his acquittal on 18.12.2024. The very fact that the respondents have extended the benefit of regularization of the entire period of suspension for about a decade and also awarded consequential pay fixation, thereby giving finality to the acquittal of the petitioner, would show that there is no justification for postponing consideration of the case of the petitioner for promotion.
10. In the light of the above, this Court finds substantial force in thecontentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and, accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to forthwith take necessary steps for consideration of the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical) on par with his immediate junior, who was promoted in the year 2021, and pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Connected
miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.
11-09-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No dpa
To
1. The Chairman and Managing Director
TANGEDCO
NPKRR Maligai,
No.144, Anna salai
Chennai-600 002
2. The Chief Engineer/Personnel
TANGEDCO
NPKRR Maligai
No.144, Anna salai
Chennai-600 002
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.
dpa WP No. 30448 of 2026
11-09-2026