(1.) Challenging the G.O.(3D) No.167, Highways (HR.1) Department, dated 07.08.2002 and also the Letter dated 26.8.2009 passed by the 1st respondent, the present writ petition has been filed and also for a direction to the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the panel for promotion to the post of Assistant Divisional Engineer for the year 2000-2001 and promote him as Assistant Divisional Engineer with all consequential and further promotional benefits.
(2.) According to the petitioner, he was selected through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and was appointed as Assistant Engineer, Highways Department, on 19.11.1981 and was also promoted as Assistant Divisional Engineer on 04.04.2005. After working in various stations, he was transferred and posted as Assistant Divisional Engineer, Tamil Nadu Sector Project, Ramanathapuram. While the petitioner was working as Assistant Engineer in Highways Department, a Charge memo, containing 11 charges, was issued by Memo No.10631//Con.II/95-7 dated 30.06.1997 by the 2nd respondent-Chief Engineer, Highways and Rural Works, Chepauk, Chennai, calling for his explanation with regard to those charges. The petitioner submitted his explanation and subsequently, an enquiry officer was appointed and after completing the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report with a finding that among 11 charges, charges 1,2,4,5,9,10 and 11 were proved and other charges were not proved. Thereafter, the punishing authority issued a memo along with the said enquiry report and called for his further explanation with regard to the enquiry report within 15 days and he also submitted his further explanation. Subsequently, the 1st respondent has imposed the punishment of Censure against the petitioner for the proved charges, by his impugned G.O., dated 07.08.2002. In the meantime, the petitioner was due for promotion to the post of Assistant Divisional Engineer in the panel for the year 2000-2001, but his name was not considered by the Government because of the pendency of the charges and the currency of punishment. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Divisional Engineer on 04.04.2005 only on completion of the punishment of currency. In a similar case, even though the punishment was in currency, the Government had ordered retrospective promotion to one Palaniyandi, Ramachandran and Ramalingam, who were imposed minor punishment of stoppage of increment and the same was in currency, as Assistant Divisional Engineer on par with their junior with due seniority and with all benefits vide G.O.Ms.No.344, Public Works (HK-1) Department dated 09.05.1995. Based on the same, the petitioner has also preferred a representation to the Government to consider his case for promotion as Assistant Divisional Engineer on par with his juniors and fix his seniority accordingly, in the light of G.O.Ms.No.344, Public Works (HK-1) Department dated 09.05.1995 as well as G.O.Ms.No.157, Public Works (H1) Department dated 25.02.1996 in respect of other employees. Since there was no response, he filed W.P.No.24707 of 2007 to issue a direction to the respondents to consider his representation and pass orders in the light of G.O.Ms.No.344 dated 09.05.1995, G.O.Ms.No.157 dated 25.02.1996 and also the order passed in W.P.No.22975 of 2005, wherein this Court ordered retrospective promotion to the individual and directed the respondents to promote him on par with his juniors, and the writ petition was ordered as prayed for. After passing the said order in W.P.No.24707 of 2007 dated 21.07.2007, the 1st respondent has passed the impugned order dated 26.08.2009, rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground of currency of punishment. Since the same is illegal, the present writ petition has been filed to quash the same.
(3.) Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the charges levelled against the petitioner were relating to certain irregularities committed by the petitioner while discharging his duty and they were not serious in nature. There was no serious allegation as if the petitioner got enriched himself by committing the said irregularities. Since there was also no allegation of corruption or misappropriation levelled against the petitioner, the respondents ought to have charged him under Rule 17(a) of Tamil Nadu Civil services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. In order to prevent the petitioner's chance of promotion, the said charges were framed under Rule 17(b) of the said Rules and punishment of Censure was imposed on him. Further, the punishment of Censure imposed on the petitioner would show that the charges levelled against the petitioner are minor in nature. Hence, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.