Judgment : Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the charge sheet, dated 210. 2002, bearing No.K.A.U.S.P/ENP/N/R/Ko.Thani/A 051/02.03, issued by the first respondent, as being without jurisdiction, arbitrary, illegal and void. 3. It has been stated that the petitioner had joined the service of the Tamilnadu Electricity Board during the year 1980, as a contract labour. As per the recommendation of the Khalid Commission, he was absorbed as a Helper in the Tamilnadu Electricity Board. He has put in 23 years of service and he is due for promotion. A charge memo, dated 20.10.2001, had been issued alleging that in an enquiry held before the Vigilance Officer of the Board, on 212. 1999, the petitioner had made a statement that after the inspection by the MRT the meters were transferred from Arcot Section to Ranipet Stores. It was further alleged that, on 9. 2000, in the enquiry by the Board, a further statement was made by the petitioner to the effect that he had denied the earlier statements made by him during the enquiry held, on 212. 1999. It has been further held that as a result of the contradictory statements made by the petitioner there was disenchantment among the superior officers of the Board and also amongst its employees. It was also stated that if the petitioner fails to give a proper explanation to the memo, disciplinary proceedings would be initiated against him. 4. It has been further stated that by a letter, dated 210. 2001, the petitioner had informed the first respondent that he could not understand the statements made in the memo. The petitioner had further requested the first respondent to forward the statements, alleged to have been made by him, on 212. 1999 and 9. 2000 and also a copy of the complaint, if any, made by the officers against the petitioner. The first respondent, by a letter, dated 12. 2001, did not give the entire information sought for by the petitioner, in his letter, dated 210. 2001, nor did he forward the statements said to have been made by the petitioner, on 212. 1999 and 9. 2000. Since the information sought for by the petitioner had not been given to him by the Board, he had written another letter, dated 112. 2001, nor did he forward the statements said to have been made by the petitioner, on 212. 1999 and 9. 2000. Since the information sought for by the petitioner had not been given to him by the Board, he had written another letter, dated 112. 2001, requesting the first respondent to provide the information sought for by him. 5. It has been further stated that, without waiting for the petitioners explanation to the memo, dated 20.10.2001, a charge sheet, dated 210. 2002, had been issued to him alleging that on 212. 1999, the petitioner had made a statement before the Vigilance Officer to the effect that, on 211. 99, the meters from Arcot Division were subjected to MRT inspection and thereafter, the meters were transported to Ranipet Stores in a van with Registration No.TN-23 D 4502, whereas in the enquiry held, on 9. 2000, the petitioner had stated that the Van with Registration No.TN-23 D 4502 did not go from Arcot to Ranipet. Making such self contradictory statements amounts to a misconduct, as per the standing order No.30 (XXIII). 6. It has been further stated that the petitioner had given a letter, dated 111. 2002, wherein he had clearly stated that he was not aware of what was in the Standing Order 30(XXIII). Further, the said allegation made against the petitioner cannot be taken to be a misconduct, as the alleged act of the petitioner does not have the effect of bringing disrepute to the Board or to its officials, nor does it create a sense of fear, due to the false information said to have been given by the petitioner. A statement made in the course of the enquiry cannot be a subject matter of the disciplinary proceedings, as it would not be a misconduct under Standing Order No.30(XXIII). 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner cannot be taken to task by conducting disciplinary proceedings against him, in respect of the statements made by him in the course of the enquiry. The allegation made against the petitioner in the charge sheet will not attract Standing Order No.30 (XXIII). 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner cannot be taken to task by conducting disciplinary proceedings against him, in respect of the statements made by him in the course of the enquiry. The allegation made against the petitioner in the charge sheet will not attract Standing Order No.30 (XXIII). A statement made before the Vigilance officer and the statement made before the Assistant Engineer, in a typed format, during the course of an enquiry, cannot be the basis of the disciplinary proceedings and they do not constitute a misconduct, as alleged by the respondents. Therefore, there is no reason for the respondents to hold an enquiry against the petitioner, based on the alleged charges, by way of disciplinary proceedings. 8. Per contra the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the above writ petition, filed by the petitioner to quash the charge sheet, is not maintainable. It has been stated that a Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, had enquired into the complaint made against the petitioner, on 299. The petitioner had given a statement stating that he had taken the meters from Arcot MRT Section to hand over the same in the Ranipet Stores by a Van, with Registration No.TN-23 D 4502, on 299. During the enquiry conducted by the Superintending Engineer/VEDC/Vellore, on 9. 2000, at the Central Office, Vellore, on the copy of the said petition received by the Superintending Engineer, the petitioner had made a statement that he had not gone to Ranipet from Arcot, on 211. 999. Instead he had gone to Central Stores, Vellore, on the said date. As his statements were contradictory to each other, an explanation was called for by the Assistant Executive Engineer/O&M/Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Arcot, vide Memo, dated 20.10.2001, from the petitioner, for having given two statements, which are contradictory to each other, by giving seven days time to submit the reply. 9. It has been stated that the petitioner had acknowledged the receipt of the memo, on 210. 2001, and the copies of the statements given by him, on 211. 99 and 9. 2000. However, the petitioner had failed to submit his explanation. In spite of further time having been given, the petitioner had failed to submit his explanation. 9. It has been stated that the petitioner had acknowledged the receipt of the memo, on 210. 2001, and the copies of the statements given by him, on 211. 99 and 9. 2000. However, the petitioner had failed to submit his explanation. In spite of further time having been given, the petitioner had failed to submit his explanation. Since a prima facie case had been made out against the petitioner, a charge memo was issued to him by the Assistant Executive Engineer, in memo, dated 210. 2002, for violation of the standing order 30(XXIII) of the Standing Orders of the Board, relating to workmen engaged in clerical work. In spite of the fact that sufficient opportunity had been given to the petitioner to submit the explanation, he had failed to do so. However, in order to give the petitioner another opportunity to put forth his case, a domestic enquiry was ordered. From the contradictory statements made by the petitioner, it is clear that he had committed a misconduct falling under Standing Order 30(XXIII). Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned charge sheet, dated 210. 2002, given to the petitioner. Even according to the petitioner he was responsible for many lapses due to which he was denied his due promotion. However, his promotion was not denied due to the pendency of the present disciplinary proceedings. In such circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, as having no merits. 10. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on a perusal of the records available, it is clear that no case has been made out by the respondents to hold that the petitioner is liable for misconduct, under Standing Order No.30(XXIII). Even if the petitioner had made contradictory statements, it cannot amount to a misconduct, under Standing Order No.30(XXIII) of the Tamilnadu Electricity Board Standing Orders. 11. Though, in normal circumstances, this Court would not be inclined to quash a charge sheet or a memo of charges, in the present case, it is clear, on the face of the record, that making contradictory statements, even if it is found to be true, cannot be a misconduct, under standing Order No.30(XXIII) of the Tamilnadu Electricity Board. Further, an order of interim injunction had been granted by this Court by its order, dated 21. Further, an order of interim injunction had been granted by this Court by its order, dated 21. 2003, in W.P.M.P.No.2161 of 2003, restraining the respondents from proceedings with the enquiry, based on the charge sheet, dated 210. 2002, issued by the first respondent. The said interim order had been made absolute by an order of this Court, dated 20.8.2003. Due to the order of the interim injunction granted by this Court, no enquiry was conducted against the petitioner, based on the impugned charge sheet, dated 210. 2002. Since this Court finds that the impugned charge sheet, dated 210. 2002, is based on a misconception by the respondents about the alleged contradictory statements said to have been made by the petitioner, it would not be in the fitness of things to permit the respondents to conduct the enquiry, based on impugned charge sheet, dated 210. 2002. The interest of justice would require this Court to interfere with the impugned charge sheet, dated 210. 2002, issued by the first respondent, at this stage, by quashing the same. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs.