PONMUDI Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR PERAMBALUR

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. A2/8485/2004 dated 5. 2. 2005 and na. Ka. No. Pani. 3 (2)/32715/2005 dated 4. 10. 2005 respectively and quash the same.

(2.) PETITIONER Ponmudi joined the services as direct recruit Junior Assistant on 28. 10. 1985. After series of promotion, he reached the position of Deputy tahsildar on 20. 11. 2003. While he was working as a Deputy Tahsildar in the Taluk office, Kunnam relating to electoral correction duty, he applied for medical leave from 15. 2. 2004 to 31. 3. 2004. He submitted a medical certificate along with his leave application. In his place another Deputy Tahsildar by name thirugnanasundaram, was posted. First respondent directed the petitioner to appear before the Medical Board, Perambalur and the Medical Board in its meeting held on 17. 3. 2004 certified that the petitioner was found fit to rejoin duty on 17. 3. 2004. Petitioner after joining duty on 17. 3. 2004, applied earned leave from 18. 3. 2004 to 16. 5. 2004 and it was rejected. The petitioner was called upon to undertake election work for the parliamentary election held in the year 2004. The petitioner, however, did not rejoin 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)/8485/04 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. 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 petitioner was suffering from acute asthma and he has produced medical certificates before the enquiry officer to show that he was suffering from asthma prior to taking medical leave and also after the report of medical board. The fact that several certificates were produced finds place in the enquiry officer's report. The respondents without considering the genuineness of the certificates and the nature of ailment suffered by the petitioner have come to the conclusion that the petitioner had disobeyed the direction issued by the higher authority and gone on leave and therefore, liable to be proceeded under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary and appeal) Rules. He submitted that in the present case, the petitioner has shown material that even after the medical Board's report the petitioner was suffering from asthma problem. The enquiry officer, however, did not accept the stand of the petitioner and came to the conclusion that the charges stand proved and the petitioner has declined to join the parliamentary election work in spite of specific direction issued on 22. 3. 2004 and held that the petitioner is guilty of charges levelled. The Disciplinary Authority while concurring with the findings of the enquiry officer rejected the explanation of the petitioner and imposed the punishment viz. , the postponement of increment by two years without cumulative effect. The period of suspension was ordered to be treated as punishment. In appeal, the second respondent, while confirming the finding of guilt, held that the period of suspension will be treated as duty period. Challenging the same, present writ petition has been filed.