R M THIAGARAJAN Vs. COLLECTOR SIVAGANGAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in W.P.No.45933 of 2006 was working as a Zonal Deputy Collector in the Taluk Office at Thiruppathur. He filed O.A.No.7574 of 2000 challenging the order of the respondent District Collector, Sivagangai, dated 16.8.2000, wherein and by which he was imposed with a penalty of stoppage of increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect. THE said Original Application was admitted on 19.10.2000. Though the petitioner sought for an interim order, the Tribunal did not grant any interim order. On notice from the Tribunal, the respondent District Collector has filed a reply affidavit dated 27.2.2001. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.45933 of 2006.

(2.) THE petitioner in W.P.45191 of 2006 was an Assistant working in the same office. By an identical order, he was also imposed with punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect for the very same incident for which the petitioner in W.P.45933 of 2006 was punished. In this case, the petitioner filed O.A.No.7601 of 2000, which was admitted on 18.10.2000. No interim order was passed. On notice from the Tribunal, the respondent has filed a reply affidavit dated 4.10.2001. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was re-numbered as W.P.No.45191 of 2006. Since there is an inter connectivity between the two Writ Petitions, they were heard together and a common order is passed.

(3.) ASSAILING the same, the petitioners contended that the order of the District Collector was not based upon any material and no enquiry was conducted. The said Pandian gave the complaint directly to the Personal Assistant to the Collector, which was not proper. Moreover, the complaint was given out of Union rivalry. In the absence of there being a complaint from the Superintendent of the fair copy section and the complaint having been given after a few days at the instance of the rival association, thereby witnesses were not examined and since no enquiry was conducted, the punishment should be set aside.