M BALASUBRAMANIAM Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner has stated that he had entered service as a Junior Assistant, on 1.6.76, in the Registration Department. He was promoted as an Assistant, on 2.5.94. On 15.11.93, a charge had been framed against the petitioner by the second respondent under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, alleging that he had not joined the new Station on transfer and thereby, caused inconvenience to the Department. THE petitioner had submitted his explanation on 8.11.93, wherein he had stated that from 14.8.93 to 13.10.93, he had gone on medical leave. THE petitioner had also enclosed a medical certificate in support of his leave application. However, the second respondent without proper application of mind, and by taking into account irrelevant factors, had imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of three months without cumulative effect in his proceedings No.5627/A1/93, dated 25.2.94. THE petitioner had preferred an appeal to the first respondent. THE first respondent had rejected the appeal, on 29.9.95, stating that the petitioner had contravened Rule 20 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred an Original Application before the Tami Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.2467 of 1996, which has been transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.27754 of 2006.

(3.) PER contra the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the impugned order passed by the second respondent, imposing the penalty of stoppage of increment for a period of three months without cumulative effect passed, on the petitioner is in accordance with law and therefore, the original application filed by the petitioner challenging the same cannot be sustained. The petitioner had exerted pressure on the District Registrar, Namakkal, by bringing in political and other influence to cancel the order of transfer issued to the petitioner instead of joining duty in the Station to which he had been transferred. The petitioner had gone on leave without prior permission and without the authorisation of the authorities concerned. Therefore, a charge memo had been issued to the petitioner. After considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner the second respondent had imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment of three months without cumulative effect on the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the first respondent. The first respondent after analysing the merits of the case had confirmed the order passed by the second respondent by dismissing the appeal. In such circumstances, the reliefs sought for by the petitioner ought not be granted by this Court.