N RAMASAMY Vs. CHAIRMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working as Supernumerary Inspector of Assessment during the year 1996 and 1997. His next avenue of promotion is to the post of Inspector of Assessment. The Chief Engineer, Personnel, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board issued an instruction under letter No. 094826/294/G252/2006-2 dated 06.01.2007, calling upon all the Superintending Engineers in the State to prepare the panel for promotion to the post of Regular Inspector of Assessment based on crucial date as on 20.03.2006. According to the petitioner, he was hoping that his name would be included in the panel for promotion. But in the list so prepared, his name was not included. The reason stated for non-inclusion is that there was disciplinary proceedings pending against him. According to the petitioner, as on the crucial date viz., 20.03.2006, there was no disciplinary proceedings pending against him. Therefore, his non-inclusion in the panel is illegal. That is how the petitioner is before this Court, with this Writ Petition.

(2.) In the counter filed by the Chief Engineer, Personal, it is stated inter-alia that the petitioner had committed misconduct during the year 2006. In respect of the same, the Junior Engineer, Town/Alangulam issued show cause notice dated 28.07.2006, to the petitioner, calling upon him to submit his explanation. Thereafter, the Assistant Executive Engineer (Distribution), Alangulam issued a charge memo to the petitioner under Clause 19(ii) and (ix) of Board Standing order under Memo No. 1742/Adm/Ads/2007 dated 19.03.2008. In the said proceedings, ultimately, the petitioner was punished. The punishment is postponement of increment for six months without cumulative effect. As against that, the petitioner preferred appeal to the third respondent and that appeal was dismissed on 17.07.2008. As a matter of fact, as early as on 11.12.2006, the Vigilance Cell of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board has sent a report under letter No. 36266/B4/B42/2006-1 reporting about the above disciplinary proceedings. It is because of the above proceedings, the petitioner was not included in the panel.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and also perused the records carefully.