The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove charges with evidence, the denial of reasonable opportunity to defend the charges effectively, and the inapplicability of disciplinary action for poor quality of work.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the second respondent herein in Proc.R.No.53975/DA/2004-S1 dated 15.02.2008 and the consequential order passed in appeal by the first respondent herein in G.O.(D) No.106 Health and Family Welfare (D1) Department dated 06.02.2009 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to confer the promotion post of Superintendent with due regards to the petitioner seniority.)

1. This writ petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the second respondent herein in Proc.R.No.53975/DA/2004-S1 dated 15.02.2008 and the consequential order passed in appeal by the first respondent herein in G.O.(D) No.106 Health and Family Welfare (D1) Department dated 06.02.2009 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to confer the promotion post of Superintendent with due regards to the petitioner seniority.

2. The facts of the case in a nutshell:-

The petitioner has joined the services as a Junior Assistant on 08.12.1975 on compassionate ground and was promoted to the post of Assistant in the year 1993, then promoted as Superintendent in the year 1998 and in the year 2003 he was reverted to the post of Assistant because of the re-fixation of the seniority based on the fresh order of the regularisation in the post of Junior Assistant. He was served with a notice by the Financial Advisor & Chief Accounts Officer as per memo in R.No.190753/APV/S5/2003 dated 05.02.2004 calling for his explanation for certain omission in audit works along with a Superintendent. He also submitted his explanation to the same and subsequently he was served with a charge memo under rule 17(b) of TNCS (D&A) rules on 30.06.2004 by the second respondent by memo R.No.53975/DA/04/S 1-2 dated 11-06-2004 and the charge is extracted as below:-

“That Thiru.J.Kalyanasundaram, Assistant of this office has failed to take up effective audit on the schemes at the office of the Deputy Director of Health Services, Ramanathapuram disobeying the instructions issued in this Office R.No.190753/APV/S5/2002 dated 27.11.2003 thereby derelicted from his duties”.

3. The petitioner also submitted an explanation dated 06.07.2004 and the same was not accepted and the Disciplinary Authority appointed an enquiry officer to proceed with the enquiry. The enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner and he also submitted his representation on the enquiry report and the same was not accepted and the Disciplinary Authority/second respondent has awarded the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect as per the proceedings in R.No.53975/DA/2004-S1 dated 15.02.2008. The petitioner submitted an appeal against the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority to the first respondent on 30.04.2008. The first respondent without considering the appeal properly rejected the same by stating that the appellant has not put forth any valid points to reconsider the punishment imposed on him as per the order in G.O. (D).No.106 Health and Family Welfare (D1) Department dated 06.02.2009 and because of this punishment his promotion to the post of Superintendent has been overlooked. Aggrieved by the above order passed by the second respondent dated 06.02.2009 the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in the enquiry no one was examined to prove the guilt of the charge but the charge was held as proved by the enquiry officer. No documents were filed, no witnesses were examined but the enquiry officer proceeded with the enquiry and submitted the report that the charges against the petitioner were proved. The petitioner nor the officer were examined during the course of enquiry. The Officer who is responsible for auditing is the Superintendent and the petitioner is only an Assistant working under him. The issue t