A M MOHAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR PERAMBALUR DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for records of the respondents in connection with the impugned orders passed by the respondents 1 and 2 in Pa. Mu. A2/8579/2004 dated 5. 2. 2005 and na. Ka. No. Pani. 3 (2)/34242/2005 dated 19. 9. 2005 respectively and quash the same.

(2.) PETITIONER A. M. Mohan joined the services as direct recruit Junior Assistant in November, 1984. After series of promotion, he reached the position of Deputy tahsildar on 4. 6. 2001. While he was working as a Deputy Tahsildar in the Taluk office, Kunnam relating to electoral correction duty, he applied for medical leave from 1. 3. 2004 to 31. 3. 2004. He submitted a medical certificate along with his leave application. In his place another Deputy Tahsildar by name T. Selvaraj, was posted. It is stated that the summary revision of electoral rolls was completed on 15. 3. 2004. Respondents directed the petitioner to appear before the medical Board at Cuddalore and the Medical Board in its meeting held on 16. 3. 2004 certified that the petitioner was fit to join duty on 17. 3. 2004. The petitioner was called upon to undertake election work for the parliamentary election held in the year 2004. Without joining duty, he applied for Earned leave from 16. 3. 2004 to 30. 4. 2004. The Earned Leave application was rejected by the first respondent and the petitioner was posted as Special Deputy Tashildar, general Election 2004 at Taluk Office, Jayamkondam in the proceedings of the first respondent Collector in Rc. A2/8579/2004 dated 22. 3. 2004 with a direction to the petitioner to join duty at once. The petitioner, however, did not join duty and failed to undertake election work and therefore, the first respondent district Collector placed the petitioner under suspension by order dated 6. 4. 2004. Charges were framed under Rule 17 (e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. An explanation was submitted to the charge memo. The Assistant Commissioner, Excise, Perambalur District was appointed as Enquiry officer. On completion of enquiry, the enquiry officer held that the charges were proved and the matter was placed before the first respondent, who rejected the explanation of the petitioner. The first respondent District Collector by his proceedings dated 5. 2. 2005 in Pa. Mu. (A2)/8579/04 imposed a punishment of postponement of increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect and also treated the period of suspension from 6. 4. 2004 to 6. 7. 2004 as punishment. The appeal preferred by the petitioner to the second respondent was rejected by the second respondent. The second respondent, however, directed the first respondent District Collector to treat the suspension period as valid leave period. Aggrieved thereby, present writ petition is filed.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority as modified by the Appellate authority is disproportionate to the delinquency charged. Learned counsel also contends that the petitioner has completed election duty prior to the taking of medical leave and on completion of the medical leave he appeared before the medical Board. Though he was found to be fit to resume duty, due to chronic ailments and the serious nature of the medical complication, he had no other alternative except to apply earned leave. The Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary authority and the Appellate Authority did not take into consideration the medical condition of the petitioner before coming to the conclusion that the delinquency was proved. In any event, it was submitted that even assuming the charges are proved, the punishment, viz. , the postponement of increment by two years without cumulative effect is harsh and excessive and therefore it has to be interfered with by this court.