STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. A KARIKALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the arguments of Mr. K. Rajasekar, learned Special Government Pleader representing the petitioners and Mr. M. Ravi, learned counsel for the first respondent and have perused the records.

(2.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner State of Tamil Nadu challenges the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 4197 of 2000 dated 21.3.2001. The first respondent was working as a Forest Extension Officer. By an order dated 30.3.1995, the second petitioner informed the first respondent that there was no leave application received from him and that he was directed to join in the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore in the light of G.O. Rt. 436, Environmental and Forests Department dated 17.5.1993. By the said order, the first respondent, who was on compulsory wait, was transferred and deputed to work as Lecturer in the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatotre, with immediate effect.

(3.) IT was seriously objected to by the petitioners by contending that the first respondent had applied leave only up to 15.11.1992 and there was no leave application from the first respondent thereafter. However, the Tribunal took a very liberal view with a view to help the applicant / first respondent and held that the period from 01.7.1992 to 15.11.1992 was covered by the leave letter and the same cannot be taken as an unauthorized absence. Thereafter, the Tribunal held that though the period from 15.11.1992 to 30.01.1995 was not covered by the order of the Tribunal but the period from 30.01.1995 to 03.02.1999 was covered by a status quo order of the Tribunal in O.A. No.2258 of 1995. The Tribunal held that since the petitioners have initiated disciplinary action against the first respondent for his unauthorized absence only after he had moved the Tribunal, the petitioners are bound to regularize the period covered by the status quo order of the Tribunal as per Rules. The Tribunal did not specify as to what was the rule that it was referring to. When the Tribunal declined to grant relief for the period from 15.11.1992 to 30.01.1995 for which charges have been framed, it is axiomatic that any regularization can be done only after completion of the disciplinary proceedings. But it, however, gave a positive direction to regularize the period from 31.5.1995 to 03.02.1999 with all attendant benefits. IT is against this order, the State has come up with the present writ petition.