IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS.
Elipe Dharma Rao and S. Tamilvanan, JJ.
Subramanian
Versus
Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Chennai and Others
W.P. No. 40119 of 2002 and W.P. No.40120 of 2002
Decided on: 20th March, 2008.
Promotion - Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 - Section 19 - G.O. (2D) No. 49, Public Works (E2) Department, dated 16.10.2000 - G.O. Ms. No. 36, Public Works (A1) Department, dated 31.1.1997 - G.O.Ms. No. 317, Public Works (A1) Department, dated 26.6.2000 - G.O. Ms. No. 593, Public Works (A1) Department, dated 13.10.1983 - Rule 20 of TNGSC Rules - Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules - Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a government servant, filed two Original Applications (O.A.) before the Administrative Tribunal seeking promotion and challenging a punishment of stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect. The Tribunal dismissed the O.A. for promotion and set aside the punishment to the extent of recovery of Rs. 1.33 lakhs, but sustained the punishment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the punishment of stoppage of increment was justified and not disproportionate to the proved charges. It held that the petitioner could not be promoted during the currency of the punishment, but could be considered for promotion after the period of punishment. The court also noted that the petitioner was eligible for notional promotion and corresponding retirement benefits.
Issues: The issues involved the legality of the punishment imposed on the petitioner and the denial of promotion during the currency of the punishment.
Ratio Decidendi: The punishment of stoppage of increment was found to be justified and not disproportionate to the proved charges. The court held that the petitioner could not be promoted during the currency of the punishment, but could be considered for promotion after the period of punishment. The court also recognized the petitioner's eligibility for notional promotion and corresponding retirement benefits.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petitions, allowing notional promotion for the petitioner and eligibility for corresponding retirement benefits.
S. TAMILVANAN, J.
W.P. No. 40119 of 2002 has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, directing to call for the records in O.A. No. 5801 of 2001, dated 14.6.2002 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai and quash the same, in so far as the rejection of the claim for the promotion of the petitioner is concerned and also to direct the first and second respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for the promotion as Superintending Engineer and Chief Engineer by including the name of the petitioner in appropriate places in the panels for Superintending Engineer and Chief Engineer for the years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 respectively.
2. W.P. No. 40120 of 2002 has been filed seeking the order in the nature of a writ of certiorari to call for the records in O.A. No. 5802 of 2001, dated 14.6.2002 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai and quash the order dated 14.6.2002 made in so far as it confirms the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect passed against the petitioner in G.O. 2(D) No. 49, PWD dated 16.10.2000 on the file of the first respondent.
3. It is seen that the writ petitioner herein had filed O.A. No. 5801 and 5802 of 2001 before the Administrative Tribunal, Chennai under Section 19 of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Act, 1985, to call for the records from the second respondent herein in memo No. C1.(1)/12010/00-3 dated 24.08.2001 and quash the same in the panel of Superintending Engineer, for the year 2000-2001 and to pass appropriate orders in the circumstances of the case. In O.A. No. 5802 of 2001 the petitioner had sought for an order to call for the records of the respondent in G.O. (2D) No. 49 dated 16.10.2000 and quash the same. After considering both the Original Applications on merits, the Administrative Tribunal by a common order dated 14.6.2002, held that the writ petitioner herein, being a Government servant cannot be promoted during the currency of punishment and on that ground dismissed the O.A. No. 5801 of 2001. So far as O.A. No. 5802 of 2001 is concerned, the impugned order therein was set side by the Tribunal to a limited extent that there will be no recovery of Rs. 1.33 lakhs from the writ petitioner and only that to extent, the G.O. was set aside and in other words, punishment was held to be sustained.
4. It is not in dispute that on the date of filing of the aforesaid applications, the petitioner Thiru I. Subramanian was working as Executive Engineer, Buildings Division, Trichy. The writ petitioner was appointed initially as Junior Engineer in the year 1969, after he was selected by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, then he was sent on deputation to the Tamil Nadu State Construction Corporation, Madurai as site engineer on 1.11.1980 and in 1981 he was promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer in PWD and as Project Engineer in the Tamil Nadu State Construction Corporation, Madurai. It is an admitted fact that in 1991, the writ petitioner was promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer in PWD and also project engineer in the Tamil Nadu State Construction Corporation and he was in charge of the construction of commercial tax officers building complex between 1981-1984 and on 31.10.1985 he was relieved from the Tamil Nadu State Construction Corporation.
5. It is not in dispute that the Tamil Nadu State Construction Corporation, a State undertaking was formed by the State Government for the purpose of undertaking construction works of various projects by itself. The Engineers in various departments of the Government of Tamil Nadu, mainly from PWD have been entrusted with the task of construction work from masonry work upto completion of construction and at the same time, their work was not hampered by too many restrictions usually placed as per the special procedure prescribed in the P.W.D. code. Though the Corporation was created as an independe
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.