S.MAHENDRAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned G.O. (3D) No.134, Agriculture Department, dated 09.09.2009 and seeking a direction to the respondents to give upgraded promotion to the petitioner as Agricultural Officer from the date on which his juniors were given and confer all the consequential benefits.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that while the petitioner was working as Field Demonstration Officer in Oil Seeds in the office of the Assistant Director of Agriculture at Srirangam on 31.01.1986, issued with a charge memo dated 27.08.1996 for the occurrence took place during the year 1987-88 namely, after eight years, alleging that the petitioner while disbursing the agricultural appliances (sprayer) to ten small farmers, prepared forgery documents and misappropriated the disbursed amount which are to be paid to the borrower. Denying the charges framed against him, the petitioner immediately submitted his detailed explanation on 08.08.1997 stating that he has rightly identified the beneficiaries who cultivated the land in the village. Accepting the explanation offered by the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer, given a finding dated 06.02.1998 stating that all the charges have not been proved. As there was no response from the Disciplinary Authority for a long time, the petitioner was under the impression that accepting the finding of the Enquiry Officer, they have dropped the proceedings. However, when the upgraded promotion to the post of Agricultural Officer came up for consideration from among the existing Field Demonstration Officer, as per the orders issued by the Government in G.O. Ms.No.475, Agriculture Department dated 28.07.1993 and in G.O. Ms. No.361, Agriculture Department dated 30.06.1995, list was drawn and sent to the persons for special training. As the same has not been given to the petitioner, he made a representation to the third respondent. By communication dated 14.11.2003, the petitioner's representation was rejected on the ground that disciplinary proceedings are pending.

(3.) According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the respondents have issued Show Cause Notice to the petitioner on 14.03.2007 on the ground that the Enquiry Officer has not considered the evidence of two Village Administrative Officers i.e. Swaminathan and Kuzhanthaivel, who have given statement that the two beneficiaries are not residents of the village from where the lands are cultivated, for which they availed the concession and have given certificate that the two beneficiaries viz. Shanmugasundaram and Alagumuthu were residing in one place and the lands cultivated by them are located in the nearby village Pottuvelli and Rayampuram.