Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. PARTHIBAN, J.
M. Raja - Appellant
Versus
The Principal Secretary to Government, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection (CL1) Department, Chennai & Others - Respondent
W.P. Nos. 22644 of 2019 & 4992 of 2020 & W.M.P. Nos. 22109, 22114, 22118 of 2019 & 5900, 5905 of 2020 & 26357 of 2021
Decided On : 17-03-2022
Writ Petition - Promotion Dispute - Tamil Nadu Civil Services and Appeal Rules - Section 17(b) - G.O.(Ms)No.71 dated 05.07.2019 - Charge memo Na.Ka.No.1575/2015/Pa.Tho dated 25.08.2015 - Na.Ka.No.3126/2015.Pa.Tho dated 15.02.2018 - G.O.(D).24 Cooperation Food and Consumer Protection (CD1) Department dated 03.02.2020 - The court examined the charge memo dated 25.08.2015 and the consequent punishment order dated 15.02.2018 and held them as illegal and unsustainable. Consequently, the G.O.Ms.No.71 dated 05.07.2019 and G.O.(D).No.24 Co-operation Food and Consumer Protection (CD1) Department dated 03.02.2020 were set aside. The petitioner was entitled to be considered for promotion as Deputy Registrar for the panel year 2018-19 and the competent authority was directed to pass appropriate orders granting promotion to the petitioner as Deputy Registrar for the panel year 2018-2019, if he was otherwise fit in other aspects and grant him all attendant benefits on a notional basis.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Co-operative Sub-Registrar Field Officer, was served with a charge memo under Section 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services and Appeal Rules, alleging that he purchased a land without informing the Government. An enquiry was conducted, and the charge was held proved, resulting in the imposition of the punishment of censure. The petitioner sought promotion, but the administration initiated fresh disciplinary action against him, leading to the filing of the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the charge memo and the consequent punishment were illegal and unsustainable. The petitioner was entitled to be considered for promotion as Deputy Registrar for the panel year 2018-19, and the competent authority was directed to pass appropriate orders granting him promotion if he was otherwise fit in other aspects.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the charge memo, the consequent punishment, and the fresh disciplinary action initiated against the petitioner, impacting his eligibility for promotion.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the charge memo and the punishment imposed were illegal and unsustainable, and the subsequent disciplinary action was deemed to be a malafide and colourable exercise of power. The court also held that the petitioner was entitled to be considered for promotion as Deputy Registrar for the panel year 2018-19.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside. The competent authority was directed to pass appropriate orders granting promotion to the petitioner as Deputy Registrar for the panel year 2018-2019, if he was otherwise fit in other aspects and grant him all attendant benefits on a notional basis.
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 of the 4th respondent viz., Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Krishnagiri in its Charge memo Na.Ka.No.1575/2015/Pa.Tho dated 25.08.2018 and the further order of the 1st respondent in its G.O(Ms.)No.71 dated 05.07.2019 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies for the panel year 2018-19 (crucial dated 1.10.2017)
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 of the 1st respondent in G.O.(D).24 Cooperation Food and Consumer Protection (CD1) Department dated 03.02.2020 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to pass an order of promotion by including the petitioner’s name in the panel for the post of Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies for the year 2018-2019 as on 01.10.2017.)
Common Order
1. The prayer in W.P.No.22644 of 2019 is to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 4th respondent viz., Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Krishnagiri in its Charge memo Na.Ka.No.1575/2015/ Pa.Tho. dated 25.08.2015 and the order of the 3rd respondent in its Na.Ka.No.3126/2015.Pa.Tho dated 15.02.2018 and the further order of the 1st respondent in its G.O.(Ms)No.71 dated 05.07.2019 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies for the panel year 2018-19 (Crucial dated 1.10.2017)
The prayer in W.P.No.4992 of 2020 is to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 1st respondent in G.O.(D).24 Cooperation Food and Consumer Protection (CD1) Department dated 03.02.2020 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to pass an order of promotion by including the petitioner’s name in the panel for the post of Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies for the year 2018-2019 as on 01.10.2017.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Junior Inspector of Co-operative Societies on 30.06.1993. He was further promoted to post of Senior Inspector of Co-operative Societies and subsequently, promoted as Co-operative Sub Registrar on 02.09.2002. The petitioner is presently working as Co-operative Sub-Registrar Field Officer. According to him, he has been enjoying blemishless record of service throughout.
3. On 25.08.2015, the petitioner was served with a charge memo under Section 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services and Appeal Rules. The charge against the petitioner was that he purchased a land worth Rs.1,25,000/- on 22.03.1996 and the said purchase was without informing the Government in violation of the conduct rules applicable to the Government servants.
4. The petitioner in response to the above charges submitted his representation stating that his wife was working as a Government teacher in the State of Andhra Pradesh, the property was purchased by his father-in-law out of his retirement benefits and was gifted to his daughter as marriage seethana in 1996. His wife had duly informed her superior authorities of the purchase of property in her name by her father and necessary entries were also made in the service book and she had even paid due property tax for the said property. The property was purchased in 1996 and suddenly, the issue was raked up after a period of nearly 20 years and the charge came to be issued in the year 2015.
5. An enquiry was conducted notwithstanding the legitimate explanation by the petitioner and the enquiry officer, after completion of enquiry held the charge proved against the petitioner. The disciplinary authority, on the basis of the enquiry report imposed the punishment of censure by his order dated 15.02.2018. The punishment imposed on the petitioner was st
The court emphasized the importance of ensuring fair and legal disciplinary proceedings and held that disciplinary actions must be based on valid grounds and not be initiated for collateral purposes.
The main legal point established is that 'Censure' punishment does not warrant the imposition of check periods for promotion, and surcharge proceedings should not automatically disqualify an individu....
The withdrawal of a charge memo does not necessarily nullify the proceedings, and pendency of disciplinary proceedings can be a valid reason for denying promotion.
The issuance of a charge memo after significant delay and without adherence to natural justice principles constitutes an abuse of process, warranting quashing of the proceedings.
The court ruled that a second charge memo, being a replica of a previously quashed memo, was invalid, emphasizing the principle of non-duplication of disciplinary charges.
Delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings and issuing charge memos can vitiate the proceedings and warrant their quashing, especially when the delay is unjustifiable and prejudicial to the employe....
Inordinate delay in concluding departmental proceedings can be fatal to the action initiated by the respondents and can prejudice the petitioner, leading to the quashing of the impugned order and gra....
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
