BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Date : 12/04/2024 CORAM The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.N.MANJULA WP(MD). No.8408 of 2023 and WMP(MD) Nos.7730 and 7732 of 2023 Pandiarajan. V ... Petitioner Vs

1. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Water Resources Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 9..

2. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, Chennai – 9.. ... Respondents PRAYER :-Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the impugned orders in Charge Memo in Letter No. 1981/E1/2015-30 dated 15.06.2018 issued by the 2nd respondent and consequential order of the 1^st respondent imposing the punishment of withholding of petitioners increment for one year without cumulative effect vide G.O.(D).No.325 Water Resources (D1) Department dated

26.12.2022 and quash the same.

For Petitioner : M/s.Karthikeyan.V For Respondents : Mr.M.Rameshkumar Government Advocate

ORDER

Challenging the order of the 2^nd respondent dated 15.06.2018, the petitioner is before this Court.

2. The petitioner who has suffered an order of punishment with stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect has filed this writ petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that after an exhaustive enquiry conducted, in the departmental proceedings, the enquiry officer had come to a conclusion that the charges have not been proved. However, the first respondent had not chosen to accept the report of the enquiry officer and he gave a notice to the petitioner by taking a dissenting view.

5. The petitioner submitted his explanation, but the first respondent, without considering the same and without stating any reasons for rejecting the enquiry report, had proceeded to pass an order of punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect. It is further submitted that the co-delinquent, who also faced the enquiry along with the petitioner has been relieved of all the charges and as against her the report of the enquiry officer has been accepted.

6. The reasons for deviating from the finding of the enquiry officer has been stated in the impugned order as under:

“5. After careful and independent examination of the charge framed against the delinquent officer, defence statement of the delinquent officer, findings of the inquiry officer, reasons for deviation from the findings of the inquiry officer, further representation of the delinquent officer on the deviated findings of the Government and the records connected to the case, the Government confirmed the provisional Conclusion of holding the charge against Thiru V. Pandiarajan, Block Development Officer, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, as proved for the Following reasons:

In his capacity as the Additional Superintendent (Schemes), District Rural Development Agency, Thoothukudi, the delinquent officer ought to have cross checked the name of the work mentioned in the estimate with the name of the work for which the administrative sanction was sought, while putting up the note. But, he failed to do so. It is evident from the documents such as note file and administrative sanction order that the delinquent officer acted negligently by not cross-checking the name of the work while putting up the note file for granting administrative sanction for the work of "Construction of flood protection wall near check dam in the supply channel to Sayarpadaithangi Tank in Akilandapuram Village".

7. The petitioner was given with a show cause notice and it has been stated that the petitioner/delinquent officer ought to have known the difference between the words “jLg;giizapd; mUfpy; and near flood escape”, but he had submitted a note order for granting administrative sanction for the work in