Back
2022 Supreme(Mad) 899
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. VAIDYANATHAN, MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, JJ.
The Additional Chief Secretary, Commissioner of Revenue Administration – Appellant
Versus
A. Valli – Respondent
Writ Appeal No. 2651 of 2022, C.M.P. No. 21252 of 2022
Decided On : 09-12-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : V. Yamunadevi.
For the Respondent: S. Vijayakumar.
Depriving a person of the opportunity for promotion when no disciplinary proceedings or punishment is in vogue would amount to another punishment and cannot be countenanced.
Headnote:
Punishment - Promotion Eligibility - The court held that the punishment imposed on the petitioner had expired before the crucial date for promotion, making her eligible for inclusion in the panel. The court emphasized that depriving a person of the opportunity for promotion when no disciplinary proceedings or punishment is in vogue would amount to another punishment and cannot be countenanced.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, facing a charge memo for bribery, was not included in the promotion panel due to a punishment of stoppage of increment. The court considered the eligibility for promotion based on the expiry of the punishment and subsequent panel drawing.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner became eligible for promotion as the punishment had expired before the crucial date. It held that depriving a person of promotion when no disciplinary proceedings or punishment is in vogue would amount to another punishment and cannot be allowed.
Issues: The issue was whether the petitioner was eligible for inclusion in the promotion panel despite facing a punishment for bribery.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the relevant rules and the expiry of the punishment before the crucial date for promotion, emphasizing that depriving a person of promotion in such circumstances would amount to another punishment.
Final Decision: The Writ Appeal was dismissed, and the State was granted time to comply with the order of the Writ Court. No costs were awarded, and the case was closed.
JUDGMENT :
1. The present Writ Appeal has been filed questioning the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 24964 of 2021, dated 09.12.2021.
2. The sum and substance of the issue on hand is as to whether the first respondent/writ petitioner was eligible to be considered for inclusion in the panel. The crucial date for promotion was on 15.03.2019. The first respondent/writ petitioner is now facing charge memo, dated 23.05.2016 under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, on the ground that there was a demand of bribe. After detailed enquiry, the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of six months, was imposed. Even though the first respondent/petitioner has contended that there was a second enquiry, which ought not to have been initiated, the factum that the money was demanded as a part of the Flag Day collection, was not appreciated, but the punishment imposed, namely stoppage of increment for a period of six months without cumulative effect, by proceedings dated 25.04.2018, which was affirmed by the appellate authority, was confirmed.
3. Though the Writ Petition was filed before this Court, in the meantime, the panel was drawn by proceedings dated 29.06.2018 and the petitioner's name did not find place therein. Subsequently, another panel was drawn on 03.07.2019, by which 35 persons have been considered for promotion to the post of Assistant and the petitioner was overlooked, which necessitated her to approach the Writ Court for redressal of her grievances.
4. The learned Single Judge, after taking note of the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and referring to the Rule position relating to Clauses 12 and 17, Part-A of Schedule-XI (relating to Section 7) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, which is extracted below:
“Clause 12: A member of service whose name has not been included in the approved list for a punishment shall not be overlooked in the subsequent years' list for the same punishment or punishments, provided the member of service is not undergoing any punishment on the crucial date for preparation of approved list.
Clause 17: Any punishment imposed on a member of service under Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, shall take effect from the date on which the said punishment order is served to the member of service concerned and the name of such member of service shall not be considered for inclusion in the approved list until the said punishment is over.”
Came to the conclusion that the punishment that was imposed on 25.04.2019 had expired on 25.10.2018 and that the first respondent/writ petitioner's name should have been included in the panel drawn on 02.07.2019, as on the crucial date to be considered for promotion being 25.10.2018, the first respondent/writ petitioner became eligible, as there was no punishment/disciplinary action pending against her.
5. The learned Single Judge has held that taking note of the factual position that the punishment imposed on the first respondent/writ petitioner came to an end on 25.10.2018 and when the subsequent panel was drawn for the year 2019 on 03.07.2019, the first respondent/writ petitioner was not facing any disciplinary proceedings or punishment overlooking her claim, cannot be countenanced.
6. As rightly held by the learned Single Judge that merely because the first respondent/writ petitioner was punished earlier in the year 2018, the same cannot be continuously held against her for the subsequent panel as well. When once the currency of punishment is over as early as in October 2018 itself and that, on the date, i.e. on 15.03.2019, the first respondent/writ petitioner was found eligible, we are of the view that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge in setting aside the proceedings dated 03.07.2019, insofar as the first respondent/writ petitioner is concerned, for non-inclusion of her name in the panel, and placing the fi
