SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Mad) 3275

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
T.S.Sivagnanam, S.Ananthi, JJ.
V.Visweswaran – Appellant
Versus
The Director of Handloom and Textiles and ors. – Respondents
W.A.(MD)No.846 of 2019
Decided On : 22-06-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.S.Visvalingam
For the Respondent: Mr.A.K.Manickam, Standing Counsel for Government

Headnote:

Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service Act), 2016 - Section 7(1) - Post of Handloom officer - Promotion - Mere filing of cases in Courts by appropriate investigation Authority against a member of service, shall not be a bar for inclusion of his name in approved list - If specific charges are framed or charge sheet has been filed in criminal case on crucial date his name shall not be considered for inclusion in approved list - Whether appellant's name can be passed over and not included in panel for promotion to the post of Handloom officer on ground that a charge memo was issued much after the crucial date - Held, Mere filing of cases in Courts by the appropriate investigation Authority against a member of service, shall not be a bar for inclusion of his name in the approved list - If specific charges are framed or charge sheet has been filed in criminal case on crucial date his name shall not be considered for inclusion in the approved list - In light of Section 7 of conditions of Service Act, competent authority who draws panel for promotion has to consider case of candidate based on said provisions namely, Section 7(1) - Court are not agreeable with findings rendered by learned Single Bench in paragraph No.5, by laying down broad proposition that pendency of charge even after the crucial date would be a bar - In fact, Court find that there are no adequate reasons to support such a conclusion apart from statutory provisions having not been taken note of - Court are of the view that decision rendered in writ petition cannot be taken to be laying down a general legal principal - Writ Appeal is allowed.

JUDGMENT :

T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.

We have heard Mr.S.Visvalingam, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.A.K.Manickam, learned Standing Counsel for Government appearing for the respondents.

2. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 20.06.2019, in W.P.(MD)No.9002 of 2015.

3. The only issue which falls for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant's name can be passed over and not included in the panel for promotion to the post of Handloom officer on the ground that a charge memo was issued much after the crucial date. In this regard, it is relevant to note Section 7(1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service Act), 2016 which reads as follows :

    “Mere filing of cases in Courts by the appropriate investigation Authority against a member of service, shall not be a bar for inclusion of his name in the approved list. If specific charges are framed or charge sheet has been filed in the criminal case on the crucial date his name shall not be considered for inclusion in the approved list”.

4. In terms of the above provisions, what would be relevant is whether charge proceedings is pending as on the crucial date. According to the appellant, on the crucial date ie., 01.03.2014, there was no charge proceedings pending and charge memo was issued only on 12.01.2015. In the light of Section 7 of the conditions of Service Act, the competent authority who draws the panel for promotion has to consider the case of the candidate based on the said provisions namely, Section 7(1). Therefore, we are not agreeable with the findings rendered by the learned Single Bench in paragraph No.5, by laying down the broad proposition that pendency of charge even after the crucial date would be a bar. In fact, we find that there are no adequate reasons to support such a conclusion apart from the statutory provisions having not been taken note of. Therefore, we are of the view that the decision rendered in the writ petition cannot be taken to be laying down a general legal principal.

5. For the above reasons, the Writ Appeal is allowed and the order passed in the writ petition is set aside. Consequently, there will be a direction to the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner by taking note of Section 7(1) and pass appropriate orders within three [3] months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top