Unexplained delays in disciplinary proceedings can unjustly extend the denial of promotion, necessitating reconsideration of effective punishment dates.

ORDER :

(Order of the Court was made by G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.)

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order of the first respondent dated 02.02.2021, imposing a punishment of censure and the order of the third respondent dated 07.03.2024, refusing to entertain the appeal as it was beyond the period of limitation.

2. The petitioner, who was originally appointed as Senior Bailiff on compassionate grounds on 03.10.1988 in the District Munsif Court, Thirukoilur, was promoted to the posts of Junior Assistant and Head Clerk, was also promoted as Grade-II Bench Clerk on 28.11.2016 and thereafter was promoted as Head Clerk of Sub-Court on 02.05.2022.

3. While he was serving as Head Clerk, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chidambaram, issued a memo on 24.01.2017 for which the petitioner did not respond and thereafter, a charge memo came to be issued on 24.03.2017 framing four charges under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 [hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”]. Both the charges 1 and 2 pertained to not properly responding to the memo and only the charges 3 and 4 were in respect of the missing of case records, case properties and falsely submitting a rectification report.

4. The petitioner submitted his reply and not satisfied with the explanation, an enquiry officer was appointed on 17.07.2018. After enquiry, the enquiry officer had submitted the report on 21.12.2018 holding that the charges 1 and 2 are proved and charges 3 and 4 are not proved. The disciplinary authority concurred with the findings of the enquiry officer and by order dated 02.02.2021, imposed a punishment of censure.

5. After a period of nearly 2 years and 11 months, the petitioner had preferred an appeal to the appellate authority. Since the same was not preferred within the period of limitation as contemplated under Rule 27(3) of the Rules, by order dated 07.03.2024, the appeal was not entertained. Assailing both the orders imposing punishment of censure and the order refusing to entertain the appeal, the petitioner has preferred the above writ petition.

6. Mr.K.Venkataramani, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Mr.M.Muthappan, appearing for the petitioner contended that, when the enquiry officer held that the charges 3 and 4 were not proved, only for the charges 1 and 2 which relates to allegation that he did not properly respond to the memo, a punishment of censure came to be imposed.

7. It is his further contention that even though only a minor punishment is imposed, still the petitioner was made to suffer denial of promotion for nearly 4 years from the date of issuance of the charge memo and the date of imposing the punishment. For no reasons, they took nearly 1½ years to appoint an enquiry officer and further when the enquiry officer submitted his report on 21.12.2018, the punishment of censure came to be imposed nearly after 2 years and 2 months from the submission of the report, which delay is unexplained and indirectly resulted in a further punishment to the petitioner by not getting the promotion in time. He further contended that when only the promotion could be skipped for one year due to the punishment of censure imposed, but because of the delay, the petitioner was made to suffer for 4 years.

8. Contending contra, Mr.E.Chandrasekaran, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that, on receipt of the enquiry officer's report, the disciplinary authority concurred with the findings, had imposed punishment. However, there had been some delay, which was due to the covid-19 pandemic. He further submitted that the punishment will take effect only from the date of the order imposing punishment. As the punishment of censure has been imposed, the petitioner could not be included in the panel for a period of one year and thereafter the promotion was given to the petitioner on 02.05.2022.

9. He further contended that knowing well the punishment of censure has been imposed, the petitioner did no