A MANICKAM Vs. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER, DHARMAPURI DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed O.A.No.176 of 1999 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal challenging the proceedings of the Sub Collector, Hozur, second respondent dated 29.10.1997, by which, the petitioner was awarded with a punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect and that the period of suspension was also treated as punishment.

(2.) THE facts leading to the writ petition are as follows: When the petitioner was working as Village Administrative Officer in Natrapalayam Administrative Office in Natrapalayam Village, he was abruptly relieved from the post on 29.10.1986, by order dated 22.10.1986 of the Tahsildar, Denkanikotta Taluk, Dharmapuri. Thereafter, he was placed under suspension, from 15.01.1987. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner was constrained to prefer a writ petition in W.P.No.718 of 1987 in this Court. While admitting the writ petition, this Court by order dated 23.01.1987, granted interim stay of suspension. Instead of giving effect to the said order, a charge memo dated 28.02.1987 was issued to the petitioner under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, by the Sub Collector, Hozur, the second respondent, which necessitated the petitioner to file a Contempt Petition. Subsequently, the petitioner was reinstated in service by order dated 16.07.1987 and posted as Village Administrative Officer, Jawlagiri. On conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner was inflicted with a penalty of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect and the temporary period of suspension has been treated as a substantial punishment. According to the petitioner, the second respondent, while imposing the penalty of stoppage of increment, ought to have regularised the period of suspension as duty.

(3.) THE petitioner has further submitted that stoppage of increment is a punishment under Rule 8 (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and suspension is a separate punishment under Rule 8(i) of the said Rules. Thus, two punishments have been imposed for the same alleged misconduct and therefore, the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal and liable to be set aside. As the petitioner had been inflicted with the penalty of stoppage of increment, the period of suspension has to be treated as duty. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the Original Application to quash the impugned order and for a direction to the respondents to treat the period of suspension as duty for all purposes.