Back
M. S. RAMESH
R. Gnanasekhar – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu rep by its Secretary to Government, Tourism, Culture and Religion Endowment Department, Chennai – Respondent
ORDER :
The petitioner herein was originally included in the promotional panel for the post of Additional Commissioner for the year 2014-2015 and accordingly he was promoted to the said post. Thereafter, one P.Vasunathan, Joint Commissioner who was senior to the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court and pursuant to the orders passed therein, he was placed at Sl.No.1 in the seniority list of Assistant Commissioner for the year 2014-2015 and the petitioner was reverted from the said post. Consequently, P.Vasunathan, was promoted as an Additional Commissioner and he had also retired from service. In this background, when the petitioner was entitled to be promoted to the post of Additional Commissioner, the impugned charge memo dated 05.05.2017, came to be framed under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules against the petitioner. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the earlier proceedings of this Court where his reversion was challenged and the orders of the learned Single Judge, setting aside the reversion, which were confirmed till the Hon'ble
Delay in initiating the departmental proceedings and splitting up of delinquencies into separate charge memos are fatal and illegal, respectively.
Inordinate delay in initiating departmental proceedings prejudices the charged officer unless there is a proper explanation for the delay.
Vagueness of charge memo, delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings, impermissibility of piecemeal enquiry
Inordinate delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings and absence of witnesses in the charge memo vitiates the proceedings and causes serious prejudice to the delinquent, rendering consequential pr....
Inordinate delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings can cause prejudice to the accused and may lead to the quashing of charges. G.O.338 prohibits the continuation of disciplinary proceedings agai....
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.
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
