The pendency of disciplinary proceedings initiated under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules creates a statutory bar for promotion under the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016.

COMMON JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.)

Under assail is the order passed in WP.(MD)No.14496 of 2020 dated 16.06.2023. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their ranking in WA.(MD)No.2379 of 2024.

2.Originally the appellant has challenged the order passed by the first respondent vide G.O.(Pa)No.195 Tourism Culture and Religious Endowments Department, dated 26.12.2019 confirming the impugned proceedings of the second respondent dated 25.03.2019 and quash the same and to direct the officials to restore all monetary benefits including the back wages on par with his seniority.

3.According to the appellant, while he was working as Executive Officer Grade II in Arulmigu Soundhararaja Perumal Temple, Thadicombu, Dindigul District from 11.09.2012 to 21.06.2015 for the Fasli year 1421 to 1424. Consequently, he was issued with charge memo under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules comprising of 7 charges vide proceedings dated 09.05.2015. An enquiry was conducted and it was held that out of 7 charges, charges 1 to 6 were proved, 7th charge was not proved. The second respondent agreed with the enquiry officers report and held 6 charges were proved, vide impugned proceedings dated 25.03.2019 and thereby imposed punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect for 3 years and when its falls due. He filed statutory appeal on time. The first respondent dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant. Challenging the same, the appellant preferred the writ petition.

4.The learned Writ Court allowed the writ petition in the following terms:-

“4.Since the statutory procedure was not adopted before levying major penalty, the order impugned in the writ petition is quashed. The matter is remitted to the file of the second respondent. It is open to the second respondent to take recourse the major penalty procedure imposed against the petitioner. If the second respondent decides to resume disciplinary action, its pendency will not come in the way of the petitioner from being considered for promotion”.

Aggrieved over the findings of the learned Writ Court that the pendency of disciplinary action will not come in the way of the appellant from being considered for promotion, the respondents have preferred the writ appeal in WA.(MD)No.194 of 2024. Similarly, aggrieved over the findings of the learned Writ Court that matter is remitted back to the file of the second respondent to conduct enquiry, the appellant has preferred the writ appeal in WA.(MD)No.2379 of 2024.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the learned Writ Court erred in remanding back the matter without taking into consideration of the gravity of the charges and apparent predetermined conduct on the part of the official respondents in imposing major punishment. Charge No.1 is unsustainable as the Tamil Nadu Religious Institution (Lease of Immovable Property) Rules do not prescribe that the auction process must commence two months before the next Fasali year. In practice, auctions for earlier Fasali years had commenced only during June, the last month of the Fasali year, demonstrating that the alleged delay was consistent with past practice. The Department itself granted permission on 23.06.2014 to conduct the auction on 27.06.2014; therefore, it is estopped from subsequently framing charges based on the same action. The Enquiry Officer's findings regarding Charge No.1 are themselves irrelevant/inconsistent, yet the charge was wrongly held proved. Charge No.2 is also unsustainable since there is no statutory provision requiring a fresh auction to be conducted within 15 days. The Appellant did not remain inactive or cause financial loss. Auctions were attempted on 27.06.2014 and 05.12.2014, but bidders were unwilling to participate because the remaining Fasali period was commercially unviable. The five-month gap before rescheduling was duly explained and com