N. Muthuvelappan vs The Secretary to Government, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department

N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.—In this writ petition, petitioner seeks to quash the impugned order dated 4.7.2001 passed by the respondent and for direction to consider his claim for inclusion of his name in the panel of Assistant Sections Officers fit for promotion as Section Officers as on 1.6.1993 without reference to the pendency of DE No. 23/87 dated 6.11.87 and promote him as Section Officer and grant him all consequential service and monetary benefits.

The petitioner was selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and appointed as Junior Assistant in the Secretariat service in March 1977 and was promoted as Assistant Section Officer on 15.2.1979. His name was included in the panel of Assistant Section Officers fit for appointment as Section Officers as on 1.6.1993. The name of the petitioner was deferred for promotion on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceeding.

The case of the petitioner is that at the relevant time, i.e., as on 1.6.1993, pendency of disciplinary proceeding was not a bar for considering the claim of a person to get promotion. According to the petitioner the said position was made clear in the Government letter No. 689 P&AR (Per/s) Department, dated 28.12.1989 and the said position was changed only after issuance of G.O.Ms. No. 368 P&AR H Department, dated 18.10.1993. In the said Government Order it is stated that pendency of disciplinary proceeding is a bar for considering the claim for promotion of a Government servant.

Placing reliance upon the Government letter dated 28.12.1989 the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that pendency of the disciplinary proceeding is not a bar to consider the claim of the petitioner for inclusion of his name in the panel dated 1.6.1993. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner made a representation seeking inclusion of his name and the same having not been disposed of, filed O.A. No. 1000 of 2001 and the Tribunal by order dated 8.1.2001 directed the respondent to pass orders on the representation of the petitioner within two weeks from the 8.1.2001. Pursuant to the said order, the impugned order is passed by the respondent on 4.7.2001.

In the impugned order it is stated that due to pendency of 17(b) charge, name of the petitioner was not considered for promotion as on 1.6.1993. As stated in the Government letter referred to above, pendency of disciplinary proceeding was not a bar for consideration of petitioner''s name for promotion till 18.10.1993. In the light of the said Government letter, I hold that the pendency of disciplinary proceeding was not a bar to consider petitioner''s name for promotion as on 1.6.1993. Non-consideration of the above aspect by the respondent vitiates the impugned order.

Consequently the impugned order is set aside. Respondent is directed to pass fresh orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 14.2.2000 on merits and in accordance with the rules in force as on 1.6.1993, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.