G.MANUNEETHI Vs. ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Writ Petitions have been filed seeking to quash the impugned proceedings of the first respondent in Letter Nos. 16821/HL2/2018-6 and 16823/HL2/2018-6, dated 14.05.2019, and consequently, direct the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the promotion of the petitioner on par with the juniors as Superintending Engineer in the respondent Department with all monetary and attendant benefits.

(2.) The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was served with two charge memos, both dated 14.05.2019, with same set of allegations, except different names of the Contractors. The charges are vague and the documents relied on by the respondents itself show that the petitioner has not committed any misconduct and he is innocent. In the arbitration proceedings, the Government relied on the order of rejection passed by the petitioner against the Contractor and contended that the Government is not liable to pay any amount to the Contractor. The petitioner worked from 14.02.2013 to 31.08.2015 in Coimbatore as Divisional Engineer. Before he joined as Divisional Engineer in Coimbatore Division, the contract was given and the work was commenced and concluded. Only one S.P.Palanivel and the third respondent handled the arbitration proceedings. These two persons did not properly conduct the arbitration proceedings on behalf of the Government, which has resulted in an Award being passed against the Government.

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel further contended that due to extension of time granted by S.P.Palanivel, the price adjustment was made. The Government has initiated departmental proceedings only against the petitioner with a mala fide intention to deprive his promotion. The charges are vague and only based on the documents relied on in the arbitration proceedings, the charges are framed. The learned Senior Counsel referred to the documents filed in the arbitration proceedings, which are annexed in the typed set of papers and submitted that in the arbitration proceedings, the Government relied on the rejection order passed by the petitioner that the Contractor is not liable to any amount. The said S.P.Palanivel did not give evidence and both S.P.Palanivel and the third respondent mishandled the arbitration proceedings, which resulted in loss to the Government. The Government did not take any action against S.P.Palanivel and he was permitted to retire from service.