R CHANDRASEKAR Vs. DIRECTOR OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITH an object to maintain and run the Rock Blasting Unit and other units purchased from the general fund of the Panchayat Union in accordance with the directions issued in G.O.Ms.No.1619/R.D.&LA Department dated 22.08.1970, the second respondent, the District Collector of Salem, has appointed five persons including the petitioner as Agricultural Engineering Supervisors in various panchayat unions in Salem District by order dated 21.11.1970. The petitioner was appointed as an Engineering Supervisor in the third respondent Panchayat Union. The nomenclature of the post was changed as Junior Engineer (Agricultural Engineering) with effect from 07.12.1970. Periodically, the post was sanctioned originally from 08.12.1971 to 31.07.1981 and subsequently from 01.08.1980 to 31.03.1982 by the Deputy Collector based on the proposals of the Panchayat Union Commissioner, Kabilarmalai. The petitioner worked for more than 16 years. He applied for leave from 09.07.1986 to 30.06.1991 on various occasions. He was granted leave up to 16.05.1987 with wages and he was granted leave on loss of pay from 17.05.1987 to 30.06.1991. He applied for posting on 01.07.1991 after availing leave for four years seven months and 26 days. Since no order was passed on his request to permit him to join duty, he sent a reminder dated 10.01.1992. More so, the third respondent passed the impugned order dated 13.02.1992 removing the petitioner from service with effect from 05.11.1986 invoking G.O.Ms.No.1046 Personal and Administrative Reforms (E.R.III) Department dated 13.11.1987. It is also alleged that G.O.Ms.No.1046 was invoked as he was on leave for more than four years.

(2.) THE petitioner sent representations dated 24.02.1992, 23.04.1992, 03.06.1992 and 27.04.1993 to the second respondent requesting to reinstate him into service and to permit him to join duty. Based on his representations, the Inspection Officer, office of the District Collector, Salem District, instructed the petitioner to appear on 08.09.1995 for hearing his appeal. He was directed to produce the appointment order and other relevant documents at the time of hearing the appeal. Accordingly, he appeared before the Inspection Officer along with the relevant records on 08.09.1995, but no order was passed. Since no order was passed by the second respondent, the petitioner sent another representation dated 17.04.1996 to the first respondent, the Director of Rural Development requesting to reinstate him in service. As the first respondent passed an order on 17.09.1999 rejecting his request and confirming the order of the third respondent dated 13.02.1992 and the first respondent also noted that the action under G.O.Ms.No.1046 P&AR Department dated 13.11.1987 is in order, left with no alternative, the petitioner filed O.A.No.3956 of 2000 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal to quash the orders dated 13.02.1992 of the third respondent and dated 17.09.1999 of the first respondent and to reinstate him with all benefits. After abolition of the Tribunal, the same has been transferred and renumbered as W.P.No.46114 of 2006. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed by the second respondent, the District Collector, Salem. Hence the third respondent has no power and authority to pass the impugned order dated 13.02.1992 removing the petitioner from service. THE third respondent, being inferior authority, could not terminate the service of the petitioner, who was appointed by the second respondent, higher authority. THE learned counsel further submits that the third respondent admitted in the reply affidavit and also in the impugned order that the petitioner was on leave. Since he was on leave, the third respondent was not justified in removing the petitioner from service. It is a different matter, if the third respondent refused to sanction leave and directed the petitioner to report duty and the petitioner did not report duty. THE learned counsel also brings to the notice of this Court that the G.O.Ms.No.1046, P& AR Department, dated 13.11.1987 was set aside by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in the order passed in O.A.No.1120 of 1989 etc batch dated 21.10.1999. THE G.O.Ms.No.1046 provided for removal of service for unauthorised absence from duty. THE Tribunal set aside the above said G.O.Ms.No.1046 and quashed the termination orders based on the G.O. and directed the concerned authorities to proceed further with the Tamil Nadu Civil Services(Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Hence the learned counsel submits that the impugned order is bad as the same is passed relying on G.O.Ms.No.1046. THE learned counsel also submits that before passing the impugned order dated 13.02.1992 the petitioner was not heard and it was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all other persons, who are appointed along with the petitioner, are continued in service. THE learned counsel for the petitioner produced the additional typed set of papers relating to one Govindarajan, who was appointed along with the petitioner and was retained in service even after his service as Engineering Supervisor was not required. Since the rock blasting unit and other units were auctioned as those units were condemned, the post of the Engineering Supervisor had become redundant. However, the said Govindarajan continued upto his retirement and he was also sanctioned pension. THE Government issued G.O.(2D)No.52, Rural Development and Local Administration dated 20.07.2006 regularising his services upto retirement under F.R.22, for the purpose of pension. According to the petitioner, the same treatment should be given to him.