C MURUGESAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner has challenged the panel of promotion of the Superintending Engineers drawn up by the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board (hereinafter referred to as 'TWAD Board') dated 7.8.1996. THE prayer in the writ petition is to quash the Order of the TWAD Board dated 7.8.1996 in B.P.No.226 issued pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.172 dated 6.8.1996 of the Government of Tamil Nadu and to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to include the name of the petitioner in the panel of promotion of Superintending Engineers above the names of respondents 3 to 8.

(2.) THE writ petitioner joined the service of TWAD Board as Junior Engineer on 5.6.1961, and after several promotions, he was promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer on 8.10.1990. THE next avenue of promotion of the Superintending Engineer is that of Chief Engineer. A panel for the promotion of Superintending Engineers to the cadre of Chief Engineer was earlier made in the year 1993, and the petitioner's name was not found in the said panel. THE petitioner, therefore, challenged the said panel in W.P.9287 of 1993 on the file of this Court, and this Court in an interlocutory application held that the promotions can be made according to the panel of promotion already drawn up, subject to the result of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner. In 1996, certain vacancies arose in the post and cadre of Chief Engineer. In pursuance of the Government Order No. 172 dated 6.8.1996 issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu, TWAD Board issued a Board's proceedings No.226 dated 7.8.1996, wherein the Board has approved the panel of names of certain Superintending Engineers fit for promotion as Chief Engineers in the order of preference as indicated in the said panel. THE respondents 3 to 8 are the persons shown in the panel. According to the petitioners, the petitioner is senior to one Kothandapani and others, but his name is not included in the panel without any reason or rhyme. THE petitioner has averred that his annual confidential reports have been uniformly good and there are no adverse remarks against the performance of his duties. THE petitioner has stated that in the performance of his duties and on the aspect of merit and ability, he is not in any way inferior to the respondents 3 to 8. THE petitioner has alleged that TWAD Board was vindictive in its approach and according to the petitioner, TWAD Board issued a charge memo No.93718 Estt. (DP/A5/ /95-1) dated 25.10.1996 containing certain charges against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he was working as Executive Engineer, Rural Water Supply Division, Vellore from 23.12.1985 to 12.3.1987 and the charges in the said proceedings related to incidents that took place prior to his assumption of the post of Executive Engineer at Vellore or subsequent to 12.3.1987, when he left Vellore's office. THE petitioner has averred that the charges framed are flimsy in nature and they have been purposely framed on the eve of his promotion from the post of Superintending Engineer to the cadre of Chief Engineer, and to deprive him of the promotion to the next higher post. THE petitioner also stated that the Enquiry Officer has accepted the explanation given by the petitioner and has recommended dropping of the charges against him. THE further allegation of the petitioner is that the names of one Rajangam and A.K.Doraiswamy, respondents 5 and 7 in the writ petition are included in the panel, though disciplinary proceedings are pending against them, the petitioner, therefore, contends that there is a discrimination against the petitioner practised by TWAD in the preparation of the panel for promotion. THE petitioner also stated that the alleged incident took place before 1986, and that would not constitute a ground denying the promotion to the petitioner as Chief Engineer.

(3.) MR.V.Shanmugham, learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that the name of the petitioner has been considered for the inclusion in the panel of promotion by the Board and the Board after having found that as against the writ petitioners charges have been framed for certain irregularities and hence the case of the petitioner for promotion was deferred till the charges framed are finalised. Learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that according to the Government Order dated 18.10.1993 that in a cases where specific charges have been framed or charge sheets have been filed in criminal cases, promotion or appointment of such cases shall be deferred till the proceedings are concluded. Learned counsel for the second respondent also states that if the concerned employee is exonerated from the charges and found otherwise eligible for promotion the employee will be given promotion with retrospective effect from the date on which his juniors were promoted. It is a case where the promotion of the petitioner is deferred and if the petitioner is exonarated of all the charges framed against him and the petitioner is found suitable with reference to all other relevant criteria, the petitioner would be given promotion with retrospective effect from the date on which his juniors are promoted. Learned counsel for the second respondent also submitted that it is not correct to state that the names of certain persons have been included against whose certain charges have been framed and pending on the date of preparation of the panel of promotion. He further submitted that the report of the Enquiry Officer is not final and conclusive and it is for the Disciplinary Authority to come to an independent conclusion with reference to the charges framed against the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the second respondent, the Board has carefully considered the case of the petitioner and other persons eligible for promotion and after applying its mind, deferred the promotion of the petitioner. He also submitted that the view of the Board was also approved by the Government. He also produced the Board's Agenda No.68 wherein the Board has considered the name of Superintending Engineers for drawing up the panel for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer in the year 19%.