AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vinod K. Sharma, J.—The Petitioner, while working as Assistant, was issued a show cause notice, under Rule 17(a) of Tamil Nadu Civil
Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1953, vide memo No. R.C.A-2/40161/98, dated 09.08.1998.
The allegations against the Petitioner was that there was delay in taking action in certain files and not handing over of certain files in the record
room as also of delay in handing over of certain files etc.
The Petitioner submitted, his explanation to the charges leveled against him. Finding the explanation was not satisfactory, the District Collector,
Sivagangai District, vide order, dated 11.01.2001 inflicted a minor punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of three years without
cumulative effect.
The appeal and revision filed by the Petitioner, were also ordered to be dismissed.
The impugned orders of punishment are challenged only on the ground that the Petitioner has been discriminated. As Mr. Mariappan, who was
also charged with the same charges and on consideration of his explanation, he was imposed with punishment of stoppage of increment for a
period three months without cumulative effect.
The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that this occurred due to the violation of Rule 9-A of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, which reads as follows:
9A. In any case where more than one Government servant of the same Department are involved, the authority competent to institute disciplinary
proceedings and imposed any of the penalties specified in Rule 8 shall be the authority in that Department in respect of the Government Servant
who holds the highest post and the disciplinary proceedings against all of them shall be taken together:
Provided that in the case of Government Servants belonging to different departments who are jointly involved or whose cases are interconnected,
the Government shall be the authority competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings and impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 8 and in such
cases the administrative department of Secretariat in respect of the Government servant who holds the highest post will initiate such disciplinary
proceedings and issue final order after complying with the entire procedure laid down in these rules:
Provided further that this rule shall not apply to cases in which officers coming under the administrative control of the Chief Secretary to
Government are jointly involved.
The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, is that it was in view of the promotion of the Petitioner to the post of Deputy Tashildar,
that the punishment in the case of the Petitioner was award by the District Collector. Whereas ,Mr. Mariappan, being Assistant was awarded
punishment by the District Supply Officer.
It is also the case of the Petitioner that the orders in appeal and revision are non-speaking orders, as these do not deal with the contentions
raised by the Petitioner.
The learned Counsel for the Respondent supports to the orders, by contending that the punishing authority, in case of the Petitioner and that Mr.
Mariappan was different, as also the charges. The charges against both the employees were not identical. Therefore, there is No. error in the
impugned orders.
On consideration, I find force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. The reading of the charges against the Petitioner as
also Mr. Mariappan, shows that they were similar that is of negligence in performing duty by delay in dealing with the file or submitting it to the
record room etc.
The impugned orders, therefore, on the face of, are discriminatory, as two similarly situated employees have been treated differently.
The impugned orders, thus, are violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Consequently, the impugned orders are set aside and the punishment awarded to the Petitioner is reduced to the stoppage of increment for the
period three months instead of three years, without commutative effect.
With modification in punishment, this writ petition is dismissed. No. costs.