(1.) WHILE W. P. No. 3026 of 2007 has been filed challenging the order of the first respondent in G. O. (D) No. 507 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (E3) Department, dated 29. 08. 2006, imposing a punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect besides recovery of Rs. 10,000/- from the pay of the petitioner in ten equal monthly instalments towards the loss caused by him to the Government, W. P. No. 30669 of 2006 has been filed, praying for a direction to the respondents 2,3 and 4 to consider the name of the petitioner for promotion as Divisional Engineer for the year 2006-2007 from the date on which his junior has been promoted, pending finalisation of charges in the proceedings of the Commissioner for Disciplinary Proceedings in Proc. R. C. A2/97/2000, dated 16. 08. 2000, split into charges viz. , TDP 4/2000, TDP 6/2001 and TDP 7/2001.
(2.) PETITIONER joined the service as an Assistant Engineer in Highways and Rural Works Department and got promoted as Assistant Divisional Engineer during the year 1990. During that time, three charges were framed against him by the Commissioner for Disciplinary Proceedings, Vellore, in proceedings R. C. A2/97/2000, dated 16. 08. 2000, which were split into three separate ones as T. D. P. Nos. 4/2000,6/2001 and 7/2001. The said charges were as under :
(3.) PETITIONER filed his written statements for said charges, stating that the alleged loss had been arrived at by the super checking officer by taking measurements in his absence and without giving him any opportunity to substantiate the measurements recorded. After the submission of the said statement by the petitioner, the Commissioner for Disciplinary Proceedings held the charges under TDP 4/2000 and TDP 7/2001 as not proved and TDP 6/2001 as partly proved. While so, the first respondent deviated from the findings of the Commissioner for Disciplinary Proceedings and considered the charges under TDP 4/2000 and 6/2001 were proved and called for explanation from the petitioner on 29. 01. 2003. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his explanations on 15. 04. 2003 for both the charges. However, the first respondent accepted the findings of the Commissioner in respect of the charge under TDP. 7/2001 and dropped the proceedings thereunder. Since no orders were passed on the explanation submitted by the petitioner for the charges under TDP. 4/2000 and 6/2001, the petitioner filed W. P. Nos. 18608 of 2006 and 19068 of 2006, praying for a direction to the first respondent to pass final orders on the said charges at an early date, whereupon this Court, by orders dated 21. 06. 2006 and 23. 06. 2006, directed the first respondent to pass final orders on the said two charges within four weeks, pursuant to which the first respondent preferred miscellaneous petitions, seeking extension of time for six months, which was granted.