BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 19.09.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

W.A.(MD)No.1250 of 2020

and

C.M.P.(MD)No.7109 of 2020

1.The Principal Secretary to Government,

Department of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj,

Fort St.George, Chennai.

2.The Director,

Directorate of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj,

Chennai-600 015.

3.The District Collector,

Dindigul District, Dindigul.

...Appellants

-Vs.-

K.Senthil Vel

...Respondent

PRAYER:- Writ Appeal - filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, to

set aside the order dated 03.01.2020 made in W.P.(MD)No.12179 of 2015

on the file of this Court.

1/13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

For Appellants

:Mr.S.Shaji Bino

Special Government Pleader

For Respondent

:Mr.M.Jerin Mathew

****

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.)

The State has challenged an order passed by Writ Court on

03.01.2020. We have Heard Mr.S.Saji Bino, learned Special Government

Pleader appearing for the appellants and Mr.M.Jerin Mathew, learned

Counsel for the respondent.

2.The Writ Petitioner was appointed as a Rural Welfare Officer

(RWO) Grade-II on 18.11.1968. While in service, he was promoted to

the post of Executive Officer and thereafter, superannuated on

31.07.2004 from the post of Block Development Officer (BDO). While

in service, he was issued with a charge memo on 11.12.1997 and had

suffered a punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with

cumulative effect. He has challenged the same by way of Statutory

Appeal. That appeal came to be decided on 25.01.2000 reducing the

2/13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

punishment to six months stoppage of increment without cumulative

effect.

3.He thereafter challenged the rejection of his request for

notional promotion to the post of Assistant Director for the panel year

1999-2000. The critical/crucial date for constitution of panel was the 1^st

of March of the following year, being 01.03.2000 for panel year

1999-2000. It is the case of the Writ Petitioner that as on 01.03.2000, he

was fully qualified for promotion and thus, the promotion of his junior

one Muthulingam, who had been promoted as Deputy Director for the

year 2001-2002 with effect from 10.07.2001 was incorrect. For this

position, he relied on the appellate order dated 25.01.2000, which had

reduced his punishment to stoppage of increment for six months without

cumulative effect.

4.Per contra, it is the case of the State that the original

punishment, ie., stoppage of increment of three years with cumulative

effect, should be reckoned for deciding whether his name ought to have

been impleaded in the panel otherwise. At any rate, the critical date, ie.,

3/13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

01.03.2000, was during the currency of six months reduced punishment

and on that account also, his name was not considered for inclusion.

5.To add to the confusion, there was a second charge memo

issued on 21.03.2002 that culminated with an order imposing punishment

of stoppage of increment for six months with cumulative effect. The

currency of punishment was between 01.03.2003 and 31.03.2004. Thus,

all in all, the case of the respondents was that the Writ Petitioner was

disentitled for inclusion for the years comprising 31.03.2000 to

01.03.2004.

6.The Writ Court did not agree with the respondents noticing

that the second charge was a minor charge under Rule 17(a) of Tamil

Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules (in short 'Rules') and

hence, would not stand in the way of his inclusion for the later years.

Even as regards panel year 1999-2000, though the charge was one

framed under Rule 17(b) of the Rules, with the reduction in appeal of the

punishment, the gravity of the punishment imposed stood reduced to six

months which would bring it under the cover of a minor violation.

4/13