Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
V. Khaleel Ahmed – Petitioner
Versus
The Chief Engineer, Personnel, Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Ltd. Chennai and Others – Respondents
W.P. No. 9222 of 2013, M.P. Nos. 1, 2 of 2013
Decided On : 07-06-2019
Regulation 106 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations allows for temporary appointments and promotions in cases where there is a need to fill a vacancy immediately or to fill a short vacancy. The regulation also allows for temporary promotion of an employee against whom an enquiry or criminal case is pending. The court also referred to a government memorandum that provides guidelines for promotion in cases where disciplinary or criminal proceedings are pending. The memorandum states that promotion cannot be withheld solely on the ground of pending proceedings and provides a procedure for sealed cover promotions. The court relied on a Supreme Court judgment that emphasized that promotion cannot be withheld solely on the ground of pending proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking promotion to the post of Inspector of Assessment. The petitioner had been arrested and remanded in judicial custody for six days due to a complaint made by his wife. The petitioner's representation for promotion was rejected on the ground of the pending criminal case against him. The petitioner challenged the rejection order.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the relevant regulations and guidelines related to temporary appointments and promotions. The court referred to Regulation 106 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations, which allows temporary promotion even in cases where an enquiry or criminal case is pending against an employee. The court also referred to a government memorandum that provides guidelines for promotion in cases where disciplinary or criminal proceedings are pending. The court relied on a Supreme Court judgment that emphasized that promotion cannot be withheld solely on the ground of pending proceedings. The court concluded that the petitioner should be considered for promotion to the post of Inspector of Assessment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner should be considered for promotion to the post of Inspector of Assessment, as there was no bar against his promotion in the regulations. The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner for promotion within eight weeks.
Result: The writ petition was allowed and the respondents were directed to consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Inspector of Assessment within eight weeks.
Prayer: Writ Petitions has been filed Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records made in letter No. 98411/554/G25/ G251/2010-1 dated 02.11.2010 and the consequential impugned rejection order made in memo No. 054020/483/G25/G252/2012-1 dated 19.07.2012 issued by the 1st respondent and quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the 1st respondent to promote the petitioner to the post of Inspector of Assessment from the date in which the petitioner's junior (S. No. 2360), the 3rd respondent herein was promoted and grant all further consequential benefits both service and monetary.
1. This writ petition has been filed, calling for the records made in letter No. 98411/554/ G25/G251/2010-1 dated 02.11.2010 and the consequential impugned rejection order made in memo No. 054020/483/G25/G252/2012-1 dated 19.07.2012 issued by the 1st respondent and quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the 1st respondent to promote the petitioner to the post of Inspector of Assessment from the date on which the petitioner's junior (S .No. 2360), i.e. the 3rd respondent herein was promoted and grant all further consequential benefits both service and monetary.
2. The petitioner was appointed as a Helper in 1991 and he was promoted as Assessor in the year 1994. The petitioner got married in 2005. A complaint was made against the petitioner by his wife before the All Women Police Station, Ranipet, alleging demand for dowry, harassment, etc. FIR was registered for an offences under Sections 498(A), 324, 323, 355, 406 of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner was arrested and remanded in judicial custody at Ranipet prison for six days. He was granted bail on 03.12.2007. The petitioner was kept under suspension. Suspension was revoked and he was posted in the Office of the Executive Engineer, Town East. The respondent No. 1, Chief Engineer, Personnel, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution, passed orders on 02.11.2010 for promotion to the post of Inspector of Assessment. The petitioner name was not included in this list.
3. The petitioner preferred an appeal for considering him for promotion to the post of Inspector of Assessment, but the same was not considered. The petitioner has stated that, a representation was submitted on 30.04.2012, for his name to be considered for promotion to the post of Inspector of Assessment. The petitioner states that, his juniors have been promoted and that he had not been considered. The petitioner's representation was rejected by an order dated 19.07.2012. A perusal of the order dated 19.07.2012 shows that, the petitioner has not been considered for promotion only on the ground that a criminal case has been registered against him. The petitioner is challenging the impugned order.
4. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner contend that, mere pendency of the criminal case, that to a case which arises out of a troubled marriage cannot be a basis for denying promotion to him. The petitioner states that only when enquiry/criminal case is pending against an employee or for misconduct arising out of employment, then alone promotion of an employee can be stopped. He says that, he has been victimized by his wife and a criminal case has been registered on 26.10.2007 on the allegations of cruelty, harassment etc. levelled by his wife.
5. The petitioner relies on regulation 106 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations. The said regulations reads as under:
"106. Temporary Appointments and Promotions:
The appointing authority may appoint or promote temporarily a person otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of these Regulations in the following cases until a person is appointed in accordance with Regulations. Provided that no employee shall under an
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
