S PACKIAM Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as a Sub.Registrar Grade II after having been selected from Tamilnadu Public Service Commission while he was working as a Senior Inspector of Cooperative Societies in 1974. As per the appointment through the Tamilnadu Public Service Commission, he joined as Sub.Registrar Grade II on 14.12.1977. He was also granted promotion as Sub.Registrar Grade I on 9.5.1985 and after completion of ten years, he was granted selection grade in May 1995 and in the said post, he had been working. THE petitioner was due to retire on 31.10.2010.

(2.) HOWEVER, on 3.2.2003, a charge memo came to be issued against him under Rule 17B of the Tamilnadu Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules with two charges. The petitioner submitted his explanation for the charges and an enquiry was conducted through an Enquiry Officer. It is seen that the Enquiry Officer accepted the case of the petitioner and submitted a report to the effect that the first charge was not proved while stating that the second charge stood proved. After a copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer was furnished, the petitioner submitted his explanation on the same and thereafter, the second respondent passed final orders on 21.9.2004 holding that charge No.1 has not been proved. The second respondent further held that the second part of charge No.1 and the second charge were proved and passed an order of punishment of stoppage of increment for five years with cumulative effect.

(3.) I do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is true, as seen from the impugned show cause notice itself, that against the order of the second respondent imposing punishment to withhold increments for five years with cumulative effect, the appeal dated 18.1.2005 is pending before the first respondent. But, that does not mean that the first respondent loses jurisdiction from exercising his powers to enhance the punishment provided the procedure contemplated under law is followed i.e the show cause notice is given so as to enable the delinquent to submit his explanation for the proposal. In such view of the matter, there is absolutely no substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner fails.