U MICHAEL Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR PUDUKOTTAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition came to be numbered by transfer of O.A. No.1141 of 1994 from the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal praying for the issuance of a Writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the panel of Rural Welfare Officers Grade-I/Assistant/Accountants fit for promotion as Extension Officers for the year 1994 without taking into account the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect imposed on the petitioner on 5.5.1993 and according to the seniority of the petitioner in the feeder category of Rural Welfare Officers Grade/I/Assistant/accountant. The petitioner has sought for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to include his name in the panel of Rural Welfare Officers Grade-I/Assistant/ Accountants fit for promotion as Extension Officers for the year 1994 without taking into account the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect imposed on the petitioner on 5.5.1993 and according to his seniority in the feeder category of Rural Welfare Officers Grade-I/Assistant/ Accountant.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that he entered the Rural Development Department in the year 1970 as Typist. Thereafter, he opted for conversion to the post of Junior Assistant, from 06.11.1982. He was promoted as Assistant on 21.05.1985. The post of Assistant is equivalent to that of Rural Welfare Officer, Grade-I. The District Collector, Pudukottai District, the first respondent herein, by letter dated 18.01.1994, called for the details of Rural Welfare Officers Grade-I/ Assistant/Accountants for preparation of a panel of Extension Officers for the year 1994. The petitioner was placed at S.No.230 in the seniority list of Rural Welfare Officers Grade-I/ Assistant/Accountants. Upto Sl.No.222, the persons in the panel were acting as Extension Officers and the petitioner was due for promotion. As he was inflicted with a penalty of stoppage of increment for the year, by the District Collector, vide order dated 5.5.1993, he was not considered for promotion. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the penalty, before the Director of Rural Development, Madras and since no orders were passed, the petitioner was constrained to file the above Original Application for the relief as stated supra.

(3.) REFERRING to rule 8(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service classification, Control and Appeal Rules, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there can be either withholding of increment or withholding of promotion, for the alleged misconduct and if promotion is withheld on the basis of the punishment stoppage of increment, then it is contrary to the Rule 8(iii) of the above said rules and i amounts to double penalty.