JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the Respondents 5 and 4 in connection with the orders passed by them their Proc.in Ku.No.9249/Se.Po/Vi/Ku.Vadamadurai/Nir/NiMe/Kamukkam/A No.238/07 dated 3.2.07, Ku.Aa No.Se.Po/Vi/ Ku.VaMa.NiMe/Ko.Kamukkam/ A No.557/ 08 dated 4.4.08 and Ku.Aa.No.023296/813/NiBi/U3/Ko/O.Na/2008 dated 18.8.2008 respectively and quash the same and direct the respondents to treat the period from 22.8.06 till 7.2.07 spent by the petitioner as compulsory wait in the post of Line Inspector and consequently give him all monetary and service benefits.) 1. The petitioner had been appointed as a Helper (Trainee) on compassionate appointment in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB/Board) on 16.02.1997. He was a diploma holder, thus eligible for internal selection to the post of Technical Assistant. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Line Inspector on 28.09.2005 when he did not report for duty. He finally reported for duty on 08.02.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner appears to have applied for the post of Technical Assistant by way of internal selection. The petitioner was successful and by order dated 05.08.2006, he was selected and posted to the Kundah Generation Circle. 2. Upon his being selected to the post of Technical Assistant, he was relieved from the post of Commercial Assistant on 21.08.2006. However, it is the case of the respondents that the petitioner did not report for duty there and for the period 22.08.2006 to 02.02.2007, he continued serving in Coimbatore Electricity Distribution/North, in the post of Commercial Assistant. 3. To an allegation by the petitioner that he did not report for duty as technical assistant since he was not served with a copy of the internal selection order to such post, the respondents would say that not only was the order of internal selection communicated to the petitioner, he had in fact, responded to same by letter dated 11.08.2006. Inter alia, he refers to therein selection order dated 05.08.2006, and requests that he be permitted to continue with the Coimbatore Electricity Distribution/North or Metro. The reason put forth by the petitioner for not willing to be posted to the Kundah Generation Circle was that his mother was ailing and that his presence with her was required for that purpose. Inter alia, he refers to therein selection order dated 05.08.2006, and requests that he be permitted to continue with the Coimbatore Electricity Distribution/North or Metro. The reason put forth by the petitioner for not willing to be posted to the Kundah Generation Circle was that his mother was ailing and that his presence with her was required for that purpose. The submission of the petitioner to the effect that he was not aware of the internal selection to the post of Technical Assistant is thus clearly incorrect. 4. With the relieving of the petitioner from the post of Commercial Assistant on 21.08.2006, the petitioner was required to join as a line inspector in the office of the Assistant Engineer/Lines/Coimbatore with immediate effect. However, the petitioner reported for duty only on 08.02.2007. For his continued absence, disciplinary proceedings were initiated framing two charges. The first charge relates to the non-reporting of the petitioner to the Kundah Generation Circle and the second relates to his unauthorised leave for the period 22.08.2006 to 02.02.2007. 5. An explanation was submitted by the petitioner and enquiry conducted thereupon. The first charge was held to be not proved and the second charge held to be proved. The disciplinary authority thus, inflicted a punishment of stoppage of next annual increment for a period of six months without cumulative effect by his order dated 04.04.2008. 6. As against the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed an appeal, which came to be dismissed by the appellate authority confirming the order-in-original by his order dated 18.08.2008. This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the appellate authority. 7. The substratum of the argument of Mr.R.Singaravelan, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.V.S.Jagadessan, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was prevented from joining duty on 21.08.2006 as he had not been assigned to the specific post to which he should report. There was a confusion as to whether the petitioner was to respond to the post of Line Inspector or Technical Assistant and the petitioner had, in fact, been periodically requesting the respondents to clear the confusion. It was only in mid December 2006 that the choice was left to the petitioner to make, and thereafter, the petitioner joined as a line inspector on 08.02.2007. No delay can thus, be attributed to the petitioner in this regard. 8. It was only in mid December 2006 that the choice was left to the petitioner to make, and thereafter, the petitioner joined as a line inspector on 08.02.2007. No delay can thus, be attributed to the petitioner in this regard. 8. It was under communication from the 3rd respondent dated 19.12.2006 that the petitioner was extended the option of choosing either of the two posts. Unfortunately, he had thereafter fallen ill and sought medical leave. After recovering from the illness, the petitioner joined duty on 08.02.2007. Thus, according to the petitioner, the period between 22.08.2006 and 07.02.2007 stands fully explained and accounted for and there was no merit in the disciplinary proceedings that have been initiated or in the confirmation of the same. 9. Mr.P.Subramanian, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents would defend the impugned order laying the full blame for non-attendance between 21.08.2006 and 07.02.2007 at the door-step of the petitioner. There had been no confusion of any sort, according to him, and thus the entire period had rightly been taken to be unauthorised absence. The submission of the petitioner that he had been made to compulsorily wait, had no merit and was not liable to be countenanced. 10. Heard learned counsels and perused the materials on file. 11. The petitioner was, admittedly, promoted to the post of Line Inspector on 28.09.2005. His application for promotion to the post of Technical Assistant by way of internal selection had been accepted by order dated 05.08.2006, when he was posted to the Kundah Generation Circle. Despite seeking and obtaining a promotion to the post of Technical Assistant, the petitioner appears to have continued in the post of wiremen with full acquiescence of the respondents. 12. Be that as it may, upon receipt of order dated 21.08.2006 relieving him from the post of wiremen, he has filed a representation asking to be retained in the original location itself citing illness of his mother. A series of representations have been filed by him as well as by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Accounts and Executive Staff Union. Be that as it may, upon receipt of order dated 21.08.2006 relieving him from the post of wiremen, he has filed a representation asking to be retained in the original location itself citing illness of his mother. A series of representations have been filed by him as well as by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Accounts and Executive Staff Union. The representations span the period 28.08.2006 to 17.11.2006 and the last representation filed by the Union on 17.11.2006 reveals the ongoing discussion with regard to the post and location to which the petitioner was to report, as follows: Under these circumstances was would request the CE/Personnel may be pleased to issue necessary instructions to the CE/Distribution/Coimbatore to permit Thiru.P.Ganesan, Commercial Assistant to join in the promoted post of Line Inspector as permitted in the 2 cases pointed out by us in the earlier paragraph. 13. Finally and upon consideration of the representations, the respondent writes on 19.12.2006 (letter received on 28.12.2006) stating as follows: “TAMIL” 14. It is only in the above communication, that the respondent has extended the option of choosing the location of posting to the petitioner and thus it can be said with certainty that it was only on 28.12.2006 that a clarification was given in this regard by the respondents. The period 21.08.2006 to 28.12.2006 thus, in my view, amounts to compulsorily wait. 15. From 29.12.2006 to 07.02.2007, though the petitioner cites medical reasons, there is no proof that has been placed before the authorities in this regard. This period thus amount to unauthorised absence, to be adjusted against the earned leave of the petitioner. The petitioner has reported for duty on 08.02.2007. 16. The above explanation and conclusion, which has found favour with the Court, has in fact found favour with the 5th respondent as well, who adopts and applies the same with regard to the first charge but very strangely does not apply the same with regard to the second charge. Since the facts and surrounding circumstances, as regards the first and second charge are one and the same, the 5th respondent would have done well to have accepted the explanation in regard to the second charge as well. 17. This writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.