V R BALASUBRAMANIAN Vs. DIRECTOR OF TOWN PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner V.R.Balasubramanian came to the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.1733/2000 seeking a prayer to call for the records of the first respondent-Director of Town Panchayat, Kuralagam, Chennai -600 108 passed in Na.Ka.No.26835/94/A1 dated 4.1.2000 so as to quash the same, consequently to issue a direction to include the petitioner's name in the panel and promote him to the post of Executive Officer Grade I without prejudice to the petitioner's claim for retrospective promotion from 1994, i.e., the date of promotion of immediate junior.

(2.) (i)The petitioner was originally appointed as Junior Assistant in Punjai Thottakurichi Panchayat in Karur District and his subsequent joining duty on 01.05.1967, he was promoted as Executive Officer Grade II with effect from 03.06.1992. After his promotion, he was reverted back to the post of Junior Assistant in view of the order dated 25.02.1994 passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.Nos.3623 and 3704 of 1992 filed by V.Manoharan and P.Ramamoorthy respectively.Once again the petitioner was posted back as Executive Officer Grade II in Krishnaroyapuram Town Panchayat, Karur District by order of the Director of Town Panchayat passed in Proceedings Na.Ka.10298/95/A2 dated 31.05.1995. Since the petitioner was reverted by order dated 04.10.1994 passed by the Director of Town Panchayat, in pursuance of the order of the Tribunal passed in O.A.Nos.3623/1992 and 3704/1992 dated 25.2.1994 reverting him as Joint Assistant from the post of Executive Officer Grade II, the said order dated 04.10.1994 reverting the petitioner was challenged. (ii)Subsequently, the Director of Town Panchayat initiated disciplinary proceedings under Rule 17(b) of the Tamilnadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules in connection with some alleged irregularities occurred during the petitioner's period of service as Junior Assistant in Pallapatti Town Panchayat from November 1985 to October 1986 and from January 1987 to April 1989. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against two others, namely, Thiru R.Angamuthu, who was the Executive Officer of the said Panchayat and C.Palanivel, who was the Electrician, for the same irregularities. By G.O.(D).No.423, Municipal Administration and Water Supply, dated 04.08.1998, Thangamuthu was imposed with the punishment of recovery of Rs.100/- per month from his monthly pension and he was further directed to pay Rs.10,296/- being 50% of the loss of Rs.20,593/- sustained by the Panchayat. Similarly, another staff, namely C.Palanivel, Electrician also was imposed with the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect. But in the case of the petitioner alone the enquiry was not over. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the real responsible persons for committing irregularities were punished by way of initiation of disciplinary proceedings and since the disciplinary proceedings in respect of the petitioner alone was pending in respect of the period during which he worked as a Junior Assistant and thereafter he has been promoted to the post of Executive Officer Grade II and also served in the said post from June 1992 to October 1994 and again from 25.11.1995 till the date of filing the O.A., there is no justification to defer his promotion on the ground of pendency of the proceedings. Therefore, he filed O.A.No.5442/1999 seeking direction to the authorities to consider the representation dated 23.8.1999 for his promotion. Accordingly, the Tribunal passed an order dated 22.9.1999 directing the authority to consider his representation and pass orders in the light of the order passed by the Tribunal dated 22.9.1999. The first respondent by order dated 04.1.2000 rejected the case of the petitioner to consider his name for promotion. The said order dated 04.1.2000 passed by the first respondent, Director of Town Panchayat is under challenge. (iii)The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the promotion to the post of Executive Officer Grade I is due to the petitioner legitimately in the year 1994 itself. Since the same is now deferred and postponed on account of pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the action of the respondent rejecting the petitioner's legitimate claim for promotion, is violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. (iv)The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that even if any punishment is imposed against the petitioner, that cannot be an impediment for promotion as the correctness is related to the period 1986-1989 i.e., 5 years prior to the crucial date. Therefore, the impugned order dated 4.1.2000 rejecting the request for promotion with retrospective effect from 1994 should be liable to be set aside. On that basis, he prays for allowing the writ petition by quashing the impugned order dated 4.1.2000.

(3.) THE currency of punishment imposed in the form of recovery of loss will continue till the loss so caused is recovered in full. As such, in cases where punishment of recovery of loss is ordered the name of that individual should not be included in the panel until the entire recovery of loss is effected. But in this case, the disciplinary action was initiated under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Service (D&A) Rules and final orders was issued on 20.7.2000 withholding of periodical increment for two years with cumulative effect and also for recovery of a sum of Rs.6,884/- towards the amount equal to one-third of the loss of Rs.20,592/- caused to the Pallapatti Town Panchayat. Thus, the petitioner is not eligible for promotion until the currency of the punishment period is over. THErefore, the question of making allegation by challenging the impugned order dated 4.1.2000 that the name of the petitioner is overlooked for the post of Executive Officer Grade II during the year 1989 pending finalisation of the charges under Rule 17(b) which finally came to be over by order dated 20.7.2000 is not sustainable in law.