G SUNDARARAJAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was originally recruited as Assistant Jailor directly by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission on 01.02.1985. Later, he was promoted as Deputy Jailor in the year 1991. THE next avenue of promotion was to the post of Jailor in which for which the method of appointment is by way of promotion and direct recruitment in the ratio of 2:1. THE crucial date for preparation of panel in the Department was 15th February every year. According to the petitioner, he is entitled for inclusion of his name for promotion to the post of Jailor for the year 1996-1997 since he was fully qualified and eligible on the crucial date of preparation of panel for the year 1996-1997 namely 15.02.1996.

(2.) THE petitioner was served with a charge memo 20.07.1994 and the charge culminated in imposition of punishment of stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect on 27.01.1998. According to the petitioner, since he became eligible to be included in the panel for promotion for the year 1996-1997, for which the crucial date was 15.02.1996, his name ought to have been considered by the respondents as per G.O. Ms. No. 368, P&AR Department dated 18.10.1993. Even if the claim of the petitioner is considered in the light of G.O. Ms.No.248, P&AR dated 20.10.1997, his name could have been overlooked in the panel prepared for the period 1998-1999, but his name ought to have been included in the subsequent panel for the year 1999-2000. According to the petitioner, there is no other punishment except the punishment imposed on him on 27.01.1998 and the period of punishment was also over on 26.01.2000 itself. Since the petitioner's name was not included in the panel for promotion, he filed O.A. No. 2895 of 1998 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and ultimately, the Tribunal quashed the punishment imposed on the petitioner on 29.10.2007. THE respondents preferred appeal before the Division Bench of this Court, and the Division Bench, by order dated 06.08.2009, set aside the order passed by the Tribunal holding that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is legal. THE petitioner also filed Special Leave Petition before the Honourable Supreme Court and it was dismissed in limine on 01.09.2009.

(3.) THE respondents would further contend in the counter affidavit that in view of the dereliction of duty on the part of the petitioner, charges under Rule 17 (b) was issued on 20.07.1994 and he was imposed with punishment of stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect. THE delay on releasing the regular panel of Jailor for the year 1996-1997 was due to the fact that the fixation of seniority among the direct recruttees and rank promotees was settled only in the year 2003. During the period between 1996-1997, the petitioner's name could not be considered for promotion because there was disciplinary proceedings were pending against him. In the year 1997-1998, three persons were appointed who are seniors to the petitioner. In the year 1998-1999, again, the petitioner's name was not considered due to punishment in currency and the same was also informed to the petitioner by G.O. Ms.No.1435, Home Department dated 12.10.2007. Again, for the year 1999-2000, his name was not considered due to the fact that currency of punishment continued on the crucial date namely 15.02.1999 and this fact was also intimated to the petitioner by G.O. Ms.No.1434, Home Department dated 12.10.2007. Again in the year 2000-2001, the petitioner's name was not considered due to the fact that currency of punishment was in force. This fact was intimated to the petitioner under G.O. Ms. No.494 dated 30.04.2008. Subsequently, for the year 2001-2002, the petitioner's name was considered and included in the regular panel as per G.O. Ms. No.495 dated 30.04.2008. THErefore, the petitioner's name was rightly passed over for the year 1996-1997, 1997-1998, 1999-2000. THE respondents are guided by the instructions received from the Government vide Government Letter dated 27.08.2003 wherein it is stated that punishment awarded after the crucial date and before the actual promotion shall also be held against the officer and this was taken into consideration.