V.R.RAJARAMAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF TOWN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved against the impugned orders of the respondents, wherein and whereby, his request for including his name in the panel for promotion to the post of Draughtsman Grade II for the year 1998 was denied only on the reason that the punishment of stoppage of increment, originally for a period of two years and later reduced to six months, has been imposed within a period of five years prior to the crucial date of the panel year 1997-98. In other words, the simple reason for rejecting the petitioner's request is that the claim of the petitioner for considering the promotion was falling within the check period of five years.

(2.) While, the petitioner was working as Surveyor cum Draughtsman, a charge memo was issued on 20.02.1997 under Rule 17(a). Though the petitioner gave an explanation, the Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment of stoppage of increment of two years without cumulative effect by order dated 25.08.1997. The petitioner challenged the said order by way of an appeal before the Appellate Authority. By order dated 28.08.2006, the Appellate Authority, modified the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of six months without cumulative effect. In the meantime, the panel for promotion to the post of Draughtsman Grade II for the year 1998 was drawn on 01.09.1998. Since the petitioner was undergoing the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years at that relevant point of time, his name was not included in the panel of promotion. However, once the Appellate Authority modified the said punishment as that of six months and when such six months period ended on 25.02.1998, the petitioner approached the respondent and sought for giving promotion on par with his junior, who have been promoted in pursuant to the panel drawn on 01.09.1998. The said request was rejected by the respondent only on the reason that the period over which the petitioner made the claim for promotion fall within the check period of five years, as per the instructions given by the Government in the letter dated 07.10.2005.

(3.) A counter affidavit is filed by the respondent reiterating the above said reason.