T.TAMIL MUHIL Vs. PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent, dated 24.10.2019, quash the same insofar as Serial No.2 is concerned and also to call for the records pertaining to the consequential impugned order passed by the first respondent, dated 24.10.2019, quash the same and consequently, direct the first respondent to promote her as Grade I Bench Clerk with effect from 24.10.2019 with all consequential benefits.

(2.) When the petitioner was working as Translator, she was posted at District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Ilayankudi, on 11.07.2013. She was working there till 02.12.2013. According to the petitioner, before she joining at Ilayankudi, one V.Dhanalakshmi, who was working there, had committed default in payment of Telephone bills for the residence of the Judicial Officer from October, 2011 onwards and the telephone connection was disconnected. For the lapses committed by the staff of the said Court, the petitioner was issued with a memo dated 09.05.2019 i.e. after a lapse of more than five years. Thereafter, departmental proceedings were initiated and by the proceedings dated 18.07.2019, the punishment of censure was imposed on the petitioner.

(3.) According to the petitioner, the inordinate delay on the part of the first respondent in issuing the memo, after a period of more than five years and imposing punishment of censure, is erroneous in view of Clause (14) of Part-A to Schedule-XI of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016.