D VEERASINGAM Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Petition has been filed seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining G.O.(1D) No.172 Rural Development dated 15.5.98 and quash the same and further direct the Respondent to include the name of the Applicant in the list of Divisional Development Officer for the year 1997-98 in the appropriate place with all consequential benefits such as retrospective promotion, arrears of pay, etc.)1. The Petitioner, at the time of filing the Original Application, was aged 55 years and working as Block Development Officer, Mandapam Block, Ramanathapuram District. He has challenged the order of the First Respondent in G.O. (1D) No. 172 Rural Development dated 15.5.1998 and consequently, prayed for a direction to include his name in the list of Divisional Development Officer for the year 1997-98 in the appropriate place, with all consequential benefits, such as retrospective promotion, arrears of pay, etc.

(2.) IT is the case of the Petitioner that by G.O (4D) No. 144, Rural Development, dated 15.12.1997, his name has been included in the panel for the post of Divisional Development Officer/Personal Assistant to the Collector at S1. No. 66. Though the Government have issued orders in G.O. (1D) No. 7, Rural Development (E1) Department, dated 12.1.1998, promoting 91 persons as Divisional Development Officers/Personal /Assistants to the District Collector/Assistant Project officers, there is no reason, as to why the Petitioner was not promoted. In the said order, the Government have stated that the name of the Petitioner was directed to be deleted on the ground of pendency of charges. The actual deletion of name of the Petitioner was effected by issuance of another Government Order in G.O. (1D) No. 172, Rural Development (E1) Department, dated 15.5.98. The Petitioner has further contended that at the time of approval of the panel, he made a representation, dated 17.2.1999 to the Government, but there was no response. In these circumstances, he has preferred Original Application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras for the relief stated supra, which has been subsequently transferred to this Court and renumbered as present Writ Petition.

(3.) THE First Respondent in his Counter Affidavit has contended that initially, when the case of the Petitioner came up for consideration for the post of Divisional Development Officer, his name was included at S1. No. 66 in the panel for the year 1997-98 issued in G.O. (4D) No. 144 dated 15.12.1997. Subsequently, the Collector, Ramnad District, Third Respondent, in his fax message, dated 17.2.1999, stated that charges under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules were framed against the Petitioner in Memo, dated 29.8.96, for an allegation that the Petitioner has misappropriated 1026 cement bags along with the Union Engineer. It was further informed that a Charge Memo was served on the Petitioner on 29.12.1997 and hence, his name should be removed from the panel, in view of pendency of the disciplinary proceedings under Rule 17(b), as contemplated in G.O.Ms. No. 368, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 18.11.1993.