S. LOGANATHAN Vs. SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, COIMBATORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The minor penalty of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect, imposed in the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in proceedings dtd. 26/9/2012 and the Appellate order issued by the 2nd respondent in proceedings dtd. 3/8/2013 are under challenge in the present writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Grade-II Warder in the year 2002. A charge memo was issued under Rule 17(a) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules against the writ petitioner in memo dtd. 27/8/2011, containing multiple charges for the alleged violation of Tamil Nadu Prison Manual and as well as the Government Servants Conduct Rules.

(3.) The petitioner submitted his explanations / objections, denying the charges and further objections on the ground that allegations are vague and made a request to mention the date and time and the place and other details regarding the allegations on 13/9/2011. On 27/9/2011, the petitioner received a reference, stating that based on the statements given by the Jail inmates of the prison, a charge memo was issued and further, the authority asked the petitioner to submit his reply within one week. The petitioner submitted a detailed representation, requesting the authorities to furnish the copies of 28 documents in order to deny his case. On 21/10/2011, the petitioner received a reply from the 1st respondent, directing the petitioner to visit the Sub-Jail and peruse all the documents within a period of 7 days in order to submit his reply. However, the petitioner again submitted a representation on 3/11/2011, insisting for the furnishing of those documents sought for by him in his earlier representation. The petitioner also submitted an application under the Right to Information Act, seeking the documents. The 1st respondent did not accepted the request of the petitioner to furnish the documents and therefore, the petitioner has not submitted his reply. The Authority Competent considered the materials available on records and imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect and thereafter, the petitioner preferred a Statutory Appeal before the 2nd respondent, which was also rejected by the 2nd respondent on 3/8/2013. The petitioner preferred a Review petition, which is yet to be disposed of.