Failure to pass final orders within the stipulated time can lead to the quashing of disciplinary proceedings and related punishment, as per the Division Bench decision.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the respondent herein in proceedings Na.Ka.No.310/Admn.5-3/2012 dated 23.04.2012 imposing a punishment of stoppage of increment for 3 years with cumulative effect and quash the same.)

1. The Writ Petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the respondent herein in proceedings Na.Ka.No.310/Admn.5- 3/2012 dated 23.04.2012 imposing a punishment of stoppage of increment for 3 years with cumulative effect and quash the same.

2. The Petitioner, who was working as Assistant in the office of the Respondent as Superintendent suffered with the punishment imposed in the impugned order. The service matrix of the Petitioner that are required to determine the issue are as follows:

S.No.

Date/Year

Event

1

1977

Petitioner appointed as Junior Assistant

2

1980

Petitioner promoted as Assistant

3

1989

Petitioner promoted as Superintendent

4

26.07.2010

Charge under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (D & A) Rules framed against the Petitioner by the Respondent herein

5

28.04.2011

In W.P.No.11011 of 2011 filed by the Petitioner, this Court gave a direction to conclude the enquiry and pass final orders by the end of October 2011.

6

28.11.2011

In WP.No.26428 of 2011, this Court directed that final orders to be passed within two months and failing which the charge shall stand quashed following a Division Bench decision.

7

07.12.2011

Petitioner''s counsel communicated the decision inW.P.No.26428 of 2011 to the Respondent herein who had received the same on 08.12.2011.

8

26.12.2011

Enquiry Officer concluded his report holding the charge as proved.

9

30.12.2011

The Respondent herein called for the Petitioner''s further explanation on the enquiry report which was served on the Petitioner on 12.01.2012.

10

17.01.2012

Petitioner had submitted her further explanation on the enquiry report without any delay on her part.

11

08.02.2012

As per the decision of this Court in W.P.No.26428 of 2011 dated 28.11.2011, Respondent should pass final orders on the enquiry report failing which the charge stands quashed.

12

23.04.2012

The Respondent herein passed the impugned order of punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect.

3(a).Based upon the counter affidavit the learned Additional Government Pleader would contend that the while the Petitioner was working as Superintendent at the office of the Child Development Project Officer, Poonamallee, Chennai 600056, herself had made some entries in her Service Register and also put signature of the Pay Drawing Officer (i.e.,) the Child Development Project Officer (CDPO) under whom she was working, as if the CDPO had approved the entries and thereby committed grievous criminal offence of forging the records in her custody on her favour and affixing the officer''s signature on her own.

3(b).Against the grievous offences she had committed, charges under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules had been framed by the Director of Social Welfare, the Respondent herein, vide charge memo No.789/Admn.2-3/2007, dated 26.07.2010. The Petitioner had already filed W.P.No.11011 of 2011 with the prayer to conclude the disciplinary proceedings pending against her and this Court by order dated 28.004.2011 had passed the following order:

“In the light of limited prayer made in this Writ Petition fact that the enquiry officer having been appointed and enquiry has already been commenced, there may not be any impediment to conclude the enquiry and pass final orders before the end of October 2011. Accordingly, Enquiry is directed to be concluded and final orders are directed to be passed before the end of October.” Based upon the enquiry, the charges levelled against the Petitioners held to be proved and explanation was called for and subsequently final orders of punishment has bee