A VELAYUTHAM Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the second respondent, dated 24. 01. 2005 and subsequent rejection of appeal by the first respondent, dated 11. 05. 2006, on framing certain charges against the petitioner, while he was working as Office Assistant at Regional Transport Office, Nagapattinam.

(2.) THE second respondent after conducting enquiry has awarded the punishment of stoppage of increment for 5 years with cumulative effect. It was against the said order, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the first respondent on 07. 12. 2005. However, the first respondent while disposing of the appeal by the impugned order dated 11. 05. 2006 has rejected the same only on the ground that the appeal is time bared. A reference to the original order of punishment passed by the second respondent shows that the second respondent has in fact considered the judgment of this Court in C. A. No. 633/1992, dated 20. 11. 1997, stating that the role of the petitioner was neither instrumental not supplemental in concealing the bribe amount and the name of the petitioner was not included in First Information Report or Mahazar. It is seen categorically that the petitioner was not involved in the charge. However, the second respondent having found that the enquiry officer has not disclosed about the evidence of P. W. 4 and P. W. 5, but merely stated that the petitioner has played a role in concealing the bribe amount, which is contrary to the decision of this Court in C. A. No. 633 of 1992, has chosen to impose punishment of stoppage of increment for 5 years with cumulative effect.

(3.) IT was against the said order, the petitioner has approached the appellate authority. The appellate authority without considering the merits of the case, rejected the case on technical ground of limitation. It is relevant to point out that even under the order of the second respondent, who is the original authority passing punishment, there is no indication of period of limitation within which appeal could be filed.