A ARASU Vs. GOVT OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Writ Petition has been filed praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the respondents especially the first respondent made in G. O. (D) No. 271 Co. operation, Food and consumer Protection Department, dated 16. 12. 2002, and quash the same as null and void, illegal and invalid and consequently direct the respondents, to include the petitioner's name in the second respondent's panel Na. Ka -54404/96 Pa. Tho-1, dated 26. 03. 1998, in between S. No. 6617 s. Seshagiri and S. No. 6625 V. Manoharan promoting him as Co-operative Senior Inspector with effect from 01. 05. 1995 with all service and monetary benefits.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as for the respondents.

(3.) THE brief facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner, are as follows:-The petitioner had joined in service as Junior inspector of Co-operative Societies in the month of december,1985, and the appointment had been made by the deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Ooty Circle, appointing the petitioner on a temporary basis. The petitioner had been permitted to appear for the qualifying examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service commission and on 16. 10. 1989, he was declared as passed. On 09. 10. 1990, he was ousted from service for want of vacancy and during the month of April, 1992, he was reinstated in service as Junior Inspector in a permanent vacancy. Based on the passing of the special qualifying examination, the petitioner was regularized in service. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Ooty, pursuant to the proceedings made in Na. Ka. 4888/95 Ne. Va, dated 21. 06. 1995, issued a charge memo alleging that the petitioner had not attended the monthly inspection meeting and had not forwarded the administrative proceedings on the due dates and that he had not paid Rs. 500/- towards the outstanding advance due. Though the charge memo had not mentioned the period during which the irregularity, as alleged, had been committed, the petitioner had given a detailed explanation stating that he had not committed such irregularities. However, the Deputy registrar of Co-operative Societies, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, had issued proceedings Na. Ka. 6107/1995 Pa-Tho, dated 31. 01. 1996, awarding a punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect.