Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. PARTHIBAN, J.
P. Muralidharan - Appellant
Versus
The Director General of Police/Tamil Nadu - Respondent
W.P. No .18324 of 2021
Decided On : 02-12-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules - Rule 17(b), 36 - Writ Petition - Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus - Challenging punishment order - Petitioner challenges impugned order stating that show cause notice issued under Rule 36 of Rules, is illegal and cannot be maintained, as same has been issued after a period of six months' limitation period prescribed in said Rule itself - Punishment was cancelled by appellate authority, but so-called revisional power has been exercised by issuance of show cause notice after expiry of period of six months - It is legally impermissible for respondent to issue such notice under Rule 36 of Rules – Held, present exercise of power by respondent and by issuance of notice after a period of six months, is to be discountenanced in law - Respondent had not disputed legal position as demonstrated by learned counsel for petitioner - At the same time, he attempted to argue that charges framed against petitioner, were serious in nature, which impelled respondent to issue notice by invoking his revisional power - Court is not inclined to hear Government Pleader on merits of charges, as, ex-facie, impugned order is unsustainable in law - Authority who exercised power, is not Government and limitation that is prescribed in relevant Rules, is very much applicable to respondent and in those circumstances, very issuance of show cause notice has to be held as not maintainable in law - When once show cause notice itself is held to be unsustainable and outside frame-work of limitation prescribed in relevant Rules, further action by respondent in passing the impugned order and punishment has to go "lock, stock and barrel" - In view of plain language as contained in Rule 36 of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, impugned action of respondent is unsustainable in law - As punishment has been set aside, petitioner's further claim for promotion to post of Accountant and then to post of Office Superintendent/Office Manager, shall be decided by respondent by passing appropriate orders - Writ Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the order of the respondent herein passed in his No.09857/CS1/2020, dated 23.06.2021 imposing the punishment of pay reduction by one stage (i.e. from 01.07.2021 to 30.06.2022) for a period of one year with cumulative effect and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent herein to include and promote the petitioner as Accountant for the year 2019-2020 with effect from 12.06.2019 and as Office Superintendent/Office Manager for the year 2020-2021 with effect from 14.05.2020 with all consequential service and monetary benefits.)
1. This Writ Petition is filed praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the order of the respondent herein passed in his No.09857/CS1/2020, dated 23.06.2021 imposing the punishment of pay reduction by one stage (i.e. from 01.07.2021 to 30.06.2022) for a period of one year with cumulative effect and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent herein to include and promote the petitioner as Accountant for the year 2019-2020 with effect from 12.06.2019 and as Office Superintendent/Office Manager for the year 2020-2021 with effect from 14.05.2020, with all consequential service and monetary benefits.
2. The petitioner originally joined as Junior Assistant on 20.07.1998 and he was promoted to the post of Assistant on 17.05.2011. On 27.06.2018, he was issued with charge memo under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, against the petitioner for certain acts of misconduct. According to the petitioner, on 08.01.2019, the seniority list was published in the category of Assistant as on 01.01.2019 and the petitioner's name was included in Sl.No.21 against his immediate junior one P.Sanjai Kumar.
3. Thereafter, on 26.03.2019, a panel of Assistants fit for promotion as Accountant for the year 2019-2020, was published and the petitioner's name had been included in Sl.No.8 above his immediate junior Mr.P.Sanjai Kumar. Subsequently, a further list was published on 12.06.2019 containing the candidate's name for promotion to the post of Accountant for the year 2019-2020 and even in that list, the petitioner's immediate juniors, were found promoted.
4. As regards the outcome of the charge memo issued against the petitioner, the Superintendent of Central Prison, Vellore, who was the competent authority, had imposed a penalty of stoppage of increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect on the petitioner, vide order dated 13.09.2019. As against that, the petitioner preferred statutory appeal to the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Vellore Range on 23.11.2019. Considering the appeal filed by the petitioner, the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Vellore Range, vide order dated 26.02.2020 cancelled the punishment imposed on the petitioner and exonerated him from the charges.
5. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a representation to the respondent on 02.03.2020, requesting for grant of promotion as Accountant for the year 2019-2020 with effect from the date of promotion of his immediate junior.
6. Subsequently, on 14.05.2020, a list of panel of Accountants fit for promotion to the post of Office Superintendent/Office Manager for the year 2020-2021 was published and thereafter also, the petitioner's immediate junior named above, was included. According to the petitioner, he was entitled to be promoted as Office Superintendent/Office Manager for the year 2020-2021 with effect from 14.05.2020.
7. While matters stood thus, the respondent herein has issued a suomotu revision show cause notice, dated 26.09.2020, calling for explanation from the petitioner, purported to be in pursuance of the power conferred on him under Rule 36 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, as to why the punishment should not be impo
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
