C ANNAMALAI Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) It had been stated that the petitioner had joined in service, as a Junior Assistant, on 23.8.1983. He had been promoted as an Assistant, on 21.8.1992. He was fully qualified to be promoted as a Superintendent, for the year 2003-2004, after completing the necessary norms. However, his juniors, namely, P.Rangarajan and M.Hemamalini have been promoted as Superintendents, even though he had been maintaining a clean record of service, as on 15.3.2003, which is the crucial date for being included in the panel.

(3.) It had also been stated that on 19.2.2004 the Transport Commissioner, Chennai, had issued a memo formulating a charge against the petitioner, under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. It had been alleged that nine vehicles brought from other States were granted re-registration in the Unit Office, Tindivanam, without proper verification of the relevant records. Based on the said allegation, the then Motor Vehicles Inspector, Grade-I, and K.Kanagaraj, the Regional Transport Officer, had also been issued with charge memos.