The disciplinary authority has the discretion to assess the evidence and form an opinion on the nature of the allegations, and relief sought based on assumptions regarding the framing of charges cannot be granted.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records on the file of the first respondent herein in Government Letter No.1516/E1/2013-3 dated 25.04.2013 and quash the same and to consequently direct the first respondent herein to include the name of the petitioner in the appropriate place in the panel for promotion to the post of Assistant Director of Rural Development Department for the year 2009-2010 and to promote the petitioner as such, with retrospective effect from the date of promotion of the petitioner immediate junior therein and to grant the petitioner all consequential benefits.)

1. The order impugned dated 25.04.2013 declining the request of the writ petitioner to include her name in the panel of Block Development Officers fit for promotion to the Post of Assistant Director of Rural Development is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The writ petitioner was recruited as Trainee Assistant by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in the year 1976. She was promoted as Assistant in the year 1984, she was further promoted as Extension Officer in the year 1997 and as Deputy Block Development Officer in the year 2002 and thereafter as Block Development Officer in the year 2005. The petitioner states that she is fully qualified for promotion as Assistant Director of Rural Development and was ripe for empanelment in the panel for the year 2009, wherein the crucial date was 01.03.2009.

3. Admittedly, the Departmental disciplinary proceedings under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules dated 16.10.2009 was initiated. The disciplinary proceeding ended with an order of punishment of stoppage of increment for six months without cumulative effect in proceedings dated 31.05.2011 passed by the 3rd respondent. Thus, the currency of punishment was ended on 30.11.2011. The petitioner preferred an appeal and it is stated to be pending.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the charges framed against the writ petitioner cannot be construed as grievous warranting initiation of proceedings under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules. There was no financial loss to the Panchayat and in respect of certain mistake, the petitioner herself collected the same and deposited the loss to the Panchayat and rectified the same by recovering the said amount from the persons responsible. Thus, for all the purposes, the disciplinary proceedings are to be construed as 17(a) proceedings instead of 17(b). Once the proceedings are considered as 17(a) proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, then the punishment would not be a bar for promotion to the higher post of Assistant Director of Rural Development. Though the order of punishment was issued on 31.05.2011 the petitioner was imposed with the minor penalty of stoppage of increment for six months without cumulative effect, thus the charges are to be construed as Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules instead of 17(b) and consequently the petitioner must be granted promotion to the post of Assistant Director of Rural Development.

5. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the orders passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 22.03.2013 in W.P.(MD).No.12725 of 2011 in the case of M.Sampoornam Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and anr., wherein, the Court had made an observation that as per guidelines issued by the Government, for the allegations considered as minor in nature, charges can be framed against the petitioner under Rule 17(a) and not under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules. Relying on the said judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that in the present case also the nature of the allegations are minor and theref