TANGEDCO Engineer Accused Of Taking ₹5,000 Must Face Departmental Inquiry While Criminal Trial Proceeds, Report Kept Sealed: Madras HC

The appellant, an Assistant Executive Engineer with TANGEDCO, was caught in a DVAC trap while allegedly receiving ₹5,000 from a farmer in connection with an application to shift an electricity service connection from an open well to a borewell.

Criminal prosecution under Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and departmental proceedings followed.

The appellant contended that the criminal charge-sheet and departmental charge memo contained identical allegations, and that continuing the departmental enquiry would prejudice his criminal defence by revealing his line of defence.

The Single Judge permitted the enquiry to proceed, directed its completion preferably within three months, and ordered that the enquiry report be kept in a sealed cover.

The appellant appealed that order.

The Court applied the principle that criminal prosecution and departmental proceedings involve different standards of proof; the difference in those standards means that identity of allegations, without more, does not establish that the departmental enquiry must be halted.

It also relied on the principle that a claim to keep one’s defence confidential cannot justify indefinitely prolonging departmental proceedings.

The judgment records the criminal prosecution as one under Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and refers to W.A.No.137 of 2026 as a decision considered by the Single Judge, but does not set out the statutory provision’s elements or that precedent’s reasoning.

The Court rejected the appellant’s contention that the matching allegations alone made continuation of the enquiry prejudicial.

It reasoned that the distinct standards of proof in the criminal and departmental forums, together with the direction to keep the enquiry report in a sealed cover and defer action on the disciplinary outcome until disposal of the criminal trial, adequately addressed the asserted prejudice.

It therefore found no merit in the appeal.

It clarified that the three-month period for completing the departmental enquiry would run from 4 November 2026, the date of the appellate order.

There was no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.