S SRINIVASAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has stated that he had joined as a Junior Assistant in the year 1968 and he was promoted as an Assistant in the year 1980. Further, he was promoted as a Superintendent in the month of December, 1994. While, the petitioner was working as an Assistant in the P.G. Section, he was asked to be in-charge of the Para Medical Section, as the concerned Assistant had gone on leave. While so, certain charges were framed against the petitioner, on 25.8.1994, stating that the petitioner had not intimated the dates of the practical examinations in the D. Pharm course, which were to be held on 16.5.1994 and 17.5.1994. Inspite of the petitioner submitting a detailed explanation, the second respondent had passed an order stopping the increment for a period of one year, without cumulative effect by his proceedings, dated 30.11.1994. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had preferred an appeal to the first respondent, on 13.2.1995. By an order in G.O.D.No.34, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 6.1.1996, the first respondent had rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner. In such circumstances, the petitioner had preferred an original application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.2767 of 1996, which has been transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.28411 of 2006.

(2.) IN the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it has been stated that the petitioner, who was an Assistant in the post Graduate Section, was also in-charge of M.E.II Section (B. Pharm). While so, the petitioner had failed to intimate the date of the practical examination, scheduled to be held on 16.5.1994, to the students as well as to the Department concerned, within the time stipulated. Such failure on the part of the petitioner had caused great inconvenience to the college administration as well as to the students concerned. Therefore, the petitioner was asked to give his explanation for his lapses. The petitioner had submitted an explanation, dated 11.7.1994. Since the reasons stated by the petitioner in his explanation, dated 11.7.1994, were not convincing, a charge memo was issued to him, under Rule 17(a) of The Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The explanation of the petitioner, along with the entire files, was forwarded to the Director of Medical Education, Chennai, for taking necessary action. The Director of Medical Education, Chennai, had examined the case carefully, along with the relevant records, and in his proceedings, dated 30.11.1994, he had issued orders imposing the punishment of withholding of increment for one year, without cumulative effect. The petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Government, challenging the order passed by the Director of Medical Education, Chennai. The Government had issued orders, in G.O.D.No.34, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 6.1.1996, rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner.

(3.) CONSIDERING the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned and in view of the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, and the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, this Court is of the view that the relief's, as prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted at this stage. Hence, the writ petition stands closed as no further orders are required to be passed in the present writ petition. No costs.