IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 29.04.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

W.P.No.32276 of 2016

and

W.M.P.Nos.27997 & 27998 of 2016

R.Ansar

...Petitioner

-Vs-

1. The Secretary to Government,

Rural Development and Panchayat

Raj Department,

Secretariat, Fort St. George,

Chennai - 600 009.

2. The Director,

Rural Development and Panchayat

Raj Department,

Panakal Buildings,

Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015.

3. The Assistant Director,

Village Panchayat Union,

Krishnagiri District.

4. The District Collector,

Krishnagiri District,

Krishnagiri.

...Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified

Mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent

herein in Na.Ka.No.5964/2014/TPC2-2 dated 31.03.2016, quash the

same and consequently direct the 4^th respondent to promote the

petitioner with all attendant benefits to the post of Block

Development Offficer.

For Petitioner

: Ms.A.Pramila

for Mr.P.Nethaji

For Respondents

: Mr.C.Selvaraj,

Additional Government Pleader

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

ORDER

With the consent of both the parties, this writ petition is

taken up for final disposal.

2. The petitioner herein, while serving as a Deputy Block

Development Officer (Panchayats), was levelled with charges

through a charge memo dated 22.04.2013 under Rule 17(b) of the

Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, to the

effect that he along with co-delinquents had failed to carry out

the duties and responsibilities entrusted to them, resulting in

a wasteful expenditure to the tune of Rs.70 lakhs supplying

multiple works and bringing them below Rs.1 lakh to avoid

technical sanction, excess expenditure in maintenance and water

supply, double payments for road works and the irregularity in

payment of the executive road works. Based on the levelled

charges, the petitioner was subjected to a domestic enquiry and

the Enquiry Officer had submitted a report dated 27.11.2013,

holding all the charges as proved. The petitioner had given his

further explanation on 11.12.2013 on the report of the Enquiry

Officer. However, the explanation was kept pending for more than

3 years and ultimately, on 31.03.2016, the petitioner was

imposed with a punishment of stoppage of increments for a period

of 2 years with cumulative effect. Challenging the punishment,

the present writ petition has been filed.

3. Along with the petitioner, 3 other officials from the

Panchayat Administration, namely, Block Development Officer

(Village Panchayat), Assistant Engineer (Rural Development) and

Union Overseer, were also charged under Rule 17(b) for identical

lapses. While the petitioner, the Assistant Engineer and the

Union Overseer were imposed with a punishment of stoppage of

increments for a period of 2 years "with" cumulative effect, the

Block Development Officer was imposed with a punishment of

stoppage of increments for a period of 2 years "without"

cumulative effect. It is not in dispute that the charges against

the Block Development Officer and the petitioner and other co-

delinquents were one and the same.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner predominantly

raised two grounds. Firstly, she would submit that though the

charges against the Block Development Officer and the petitioner

herein, who was a Deputy Block Development Officer, were one and

the same, the disciplinary authority had chosen to impose a

lesser punishment for the Block Development Officer, which is an

act of discrimination. In support of such a claim, the learned

counsel placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Division

Bench of this Court in the case of The Secretary to Government,

Public Works Department and others Vs. S.Bright Solomon and

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

anoth