C. VIJAYAKUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND WATER SUPPLY DEPARTMENT, FORT ST.GEORGE, CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in G.O.(D). No. 164, Municipal administration and Water Supply Department, dated 07.03.2016 and to quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Joint Director of Municipal Administration, above his juniors, with all consequential and other attendant benefits, including arrears of salary.

(2.) In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it has been averred by the petitioner as follows-

(3.) The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was working as Municipal Commissioner of Nagapattinam Selection Grade Municipality for the period from Aug. 2006 to Nov. 2008 and then, he was transferred to Kodaikkanal Municipality and further, transferred to Pallavapuram Municipality in the year 2010. While working in Pallavapuram Municipality, the petitioner was issued with the charge memo by the 2nd respondent in Roc. No. 65050/2008/C4 dated 04.12.2010, alleging that while in the office of Municipal Commissioner, Nagapattinam, he was responsible for casting the votes of sixteen councilors in the election to the post of Chairman at Nagapattinam Municipality held on 28.10.2006 and he had misused the power in the post of Municipal Commissioner when he was holding the said post and accordingly, he had contravened the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules. In this regard, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, by inviting the attention of this Court to Rule 109 of the Tamil Nadu Town Panchayats, 3rd Grade Municipalities, Municipalities and Corporations (Election) Rules, 2006, submitted that the said Rule makes it mandatory for the Returning Officer to cast the votes of the Councillors on request and according to their wishes. The said Rule does not have any provision to examine the request of the Councillors and take decision about their request on merits. The said Rule itself says that the Returning Officer shall cast the votes of the Councillors according to their wishes. In fact, in the instant case, only on the request made by the Councilors, the petitioner had casted their votes. The petitioner did not act against the wishes of the Councillors and did not fail to maintain the secrecy of the voting. Moreover, none of the 16 Councillors on whose behalf the petitioner had casted votes, made any complaint that the petitioner had acted on his own or against their wishes or failed to maintain secrecy of voting. In fact, the Inquiry Officer, after completing the enquiry, has come to the conclusion that both the charges levelled against the petitioner have not been proved. But, the 1st respondent deviated from the findings of the Inquiry Officer and concluded that the charges levelled against the petitioner were found proved for the reason that 16 Councilors, who have opted for assistance in voting in the Chairman election held on the forenoon of 28.10.2006, did not opt for any assistance in the afternoon when the election was held for electing Vice-Chairman. The petitioner had also given additional explanation; but, in spite of that, the order was passed by the 1st respondent on 10.04.2014 awarding punishment of stoppage three increments with cumulative effect.