T M JAYARAMAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was working as a Selection Grade Office Manager at the Government Industrial Training Institute, Pudukottai. He has come forward to challenge the order of punishment viz.,stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect given to him. THE petitioner had availed the remedies of appeal as well as review. Having lost those remedies, he has filed O.A.No.2411 of 2001 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal.

(2.) PENDING the Original Application, the petitioner did not have the benefit of any interim order. Infact at the time of filing of the OA, the petitioner already got retired from service.

(3.) IN the reply affidavit, it was stated that the petitioner claimed duty relief on the ground that he was a District level officer bearer of the Government Official's Union, Tiruchirapalli District and he is eligible to take duty relief for the purpose of doing association work and no exception can be taken for his coming late to the office. His stand was rejected by the respondents. It was stated in the reply affidavit that the petitioner was having the habit of availing one or two hours of permission daily to attend to the affairs of his Union. He had not obtained permission from the Deputy Director/Principal and the charges framed against him were proved and only for the proven charges, the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect was imposed. Though the petitioner claimed the relief on the basis of a Government letter, it was stated that it can be done only on a specific request. There are no grounds to interfere with the order of punishment.