G MANIMEKALAI Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER DHARMAPURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was working as a Selection Grade Assistant in the Revenue Divisional Office at Dhamrpuri District. Pursuant to a disciplinary action initiated in the year 2002, the District Revenue Officer, Dharmapuri, by order dated 12.2.2007, inflicted a penalty of stoppage of increment for a period of three months without cumulative effect. As a consequence thereof, the petitioner's name has been omitted to be included in the panel of Deputy Tahsildars for the year 2006 on the grounds that the petitioner was suffering a current punishment. Aggrieved by the punishment of stoppage of increment the petitioner has filed W.P. No. 6733 of 2007 for a Writ of Certiorarifled Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the third respondent in R.O.C. No. 57301/2006(A2), dated 14.2.2007, quash the same and consequently direct the third respondent to include the name of the petitioner in temporary panel for Deputy Tahsildar for the year 2006.

(2.) AS the petitioner's juniors have been included in the temporary panel ignoring her legitimate claim for promotion, the petitioner has filed W.P. No. 7064 of 2007 to quash the temporary panel dated 14.2.2007 drawn by the third respondent and consequently direct the third respondent to include the name of the petitioner In the temporary panel for the post of the Deputy Tahstldar for the year 2006 and for further orders.

(3.) WHILE the petitioner was working as a Revenue Inspector Nallampalli, Dharmapuri District, she was served with a charge memo dated 21.2.2000 under Rule 17-A of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, calling upon her to submit an explanation to the above said charge memo. The petitioner submitted her explanation to the District Revenue Officer, Dharmapuri as early as on 10.4.2004 and denied the allegations. In her explanation, she submitted that the Village Administrative Officer, Nallampaili, had verified the details in the concerned village and submitted a declaration that the applicant, Miss.Aklia Mary, was residing with her parents in the village for 1 years and that therefore, recommended for issuance of Nativity Certificate. The petitioner has also verified the details along with the Village Administrative Officer. Though the application of the said Akila Mary was for issuance of Nativity Certificate and the Village Administrative Officer, Nallampalli Village, had recommend for the issuance of the said Certificate, the petitioner refused to counter sign for the issuance of the Nativity Certificate, but counter signed and forwarded the application only for Residence Certificate. The second respondent after receiving his explanation, did not pass orders for a long time and therefore, the petitioner was under a bona fide impression that the District Revenue Officer, Dharmapuri had dropped the proceedings.