IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Orders reserved on 7/11/2023 Pronounced on 5/4/2024 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN Writ Petition No.17183 of 2013 N. Gangabai ... Petitioner Vs The Inspector General of Registration Santhome Chennai 28. ... Respondent PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the proceedings of the respondent in Mu.Mu.No.32898/A2/A5/2012 dated 2/2/2013 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondent to promote the petitioner as Sub-Registrar Grade II on par with her juniors from 1/4/2012 with all consequential and attendant benefits.

For petitioner ... Ms.V.Kanchana for Mr.V.Vijay Shankar For respondent ... Ms.C.Sangamithirai Special Government Pleader - - - - -

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed to quash the order dated 2/2/2013 passed by the respondent in Mu.Mu.No.32898/A2/A5/2012 and consequently, direct the respondent to promote the petitioner as Sub- Registrar Grade II on par with her juniors from 1/4/2012 with all consequential and attendant benefits.

2. Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:-

The petitioner had joined in the Department of Inspector General of Registration as an Assistant in the year 1993. She was given selection grade on completion of ten years of service. The respondent for disciplinary proceeding has issued a charge memo to the petitioner on 6/11/2007, on enquiry, the said charges were proved, on which the petitioner was imposed a penalty of reduction in rank for a period of one year. Accordingly, the petitioner was reverted, as per the order dated 29/11/2010 and was posted as Junior Assistant in Kancheepuram District.

3. On 2/12/2010, the petitioner was granted permission to go abroad for six months from 20/12/2010 to 17/6/2011. Subsequently, the said permission was modified and she was permitted to leave for abroad from 7/2/2011 to 5/8/2011 i.e., for six months. After expiry of the leave, she reported to duty on 6/8/2011.

4. On 25/6/2012, the counsel for the petitioner has submitted a representation to the respondent to promote her as Sub-Registrar on par with her juniors, alleging that the period of punishment was completed on 29/11/2011. On 2/2/2013, the impugned order was passed by the respondent informing her that on 1/4/2011, which was the crucial date for preparation of panel for the year 2011 – 2012 and 1/4//2012, which was the crucial date for preparation of panel for 2012 – 2013, there was a currency of punishment, thereby, she could not be considered for promotion. It is further submitted that the respondent has unilaterally extended the period of punishment by six months contrary to the Rules, thereby, the petitioner has come forward with the instant writ petition.

5. The Inspector General of Registration has filed counter affidavit stating that as per the Proceedings in A.1/1997/07 dated 6/11/2007 charges were framed against the petitioner under Rule 10 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (TDP) in TDP Case No.18 of 2007. She was awarded punishment by reducing her to the rank to Junior Assistant for a period of one year, as per the Proceeding dated 18/11/2010 and posted at administrative Section as per the Proceeding dated 29/11/2010.

6. It is also mentioned in the counter affidavit that as per paragraph No.4 of the order of imposing punishment, it is specifically mentioned that if the petitioner happens to go on leave during the period of punishment, the leave period will not be counted for calculation of the punishment period. The leave period from 7/2/2011 to 5/8/2011 is within the punishment period, thereby she was not considered.

7. Heard Mr.V.Kanchana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.C.Sangamithirai, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondent.

8. The short point that falls for consideration is whether the respondent was justified in non inclusion of the name of the peti