AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Venugopal, J.—The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking the relief of Certiorari to call for the records of the first
Respondent in proceeding Rc. No. 39355/2005/EM.I(2) dated 4.10.2006 and to quash the same.
The Petitioner has been appointed as Junior Assistant on 02.08.1976 through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. Subsequently, he has
been promoted as Junior Inspector during the year 1980 and further promoted as Senior Inspector in the year 1983. He has been served with a
Charge Memo on 22.7.1992 alleging that the Petitioner was engaged in private trade of selling tiles. A domestic enquiry has been conducted and
an enquiry report on 28.4.1994 has been submitted in and by which, it is held that the charge levelled against the Petitioner has been found to be
proved and consequently, a punishment of withholding of increment for a period of three months without cumulative effect has been imposed on the
Petitioner.
According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, on 30.12.1993, a panel has been prepared for promotion to the post of Co-operative Sub
Registrar by the first Respondent and he has been placed at serial No. 132 as per the panel. On 24.2.1994, the Joint Registrar of Cooperative
Societies issued orders of promotion, promoting the Petitioner as a Co-operative Sub Registrar. He joined as Co-operative Sub Registrar on
23.12.1995. Currently, the Petitioner is working as a Cooperative Sub Registrar (Package) in the office of the third Respondent.
On 4.10.2006, the First Respondent/Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Chennai, passed the impugned order cancelling the Petitioner''s
promotion order dated 24.2.1994 and reverted the Petitioner as Senior Inspector alleging that his promotion effected in the year 1994 has been an
erroneous one. Also, the impugned order of the first Respondent dated 4.10.2006 proceeds on the footing that the Petitioner''s name should not
have been included in the promotion panel, when the disciplinary proceedings have been pending.
The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the punishment imposed on the Petitioner dated 28.04.1994 stopping the
increment for a period of three months without cumulative effect got expired on 28.07.1994 and as a matter of fact, the Petitioner has become
eligible to be considered for promotion on cessation of punishment namely, viz. on 28.7.1994 itself and even if the Petitioner has been promoted
after the punishment period, then he would have been promoted in the year 1994 itself and as on date, he is eligible to function as Co-operative
Sub Registrar.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been promoted during the year 1994 and the said promotion cannot be
cancelled after an expiry of twelve years. Added further, since the Petitioner has already completed punishment in the year 1994 itself, his
promotion cannot be cancelled in the year 2006 quoting the pending disciplinary proceedings, when promotion has been granted.
Advancing his arguments, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the first Respondent has failed to appreciate an
important fact that after the year 1994 more than 300 persons, who are juniors to the Petitioner, have been promoted and the Petitioner, who is
eligible to be promoted in the year 1994 itself, cannot be demoted in the year 2006.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner urges before this Court that the Petitioner has already undergone the punishment and as such, he cannot
be punished for the second time by demoting him after a lapse of twelve years. In short, the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is
that the order of the first Respondent dated 4.10.2006 is contrary to law and illegal one.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner cites decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in M.A. Hameed v. State of A.P and Anr , wherein it is laid
down as follows:
The reversion of the Appellant after he held the higher post for more than a decade was wholly unjustified. If his appointment was temporary or
irregular in any manner he should have been reverted within a reasonable period. Even after the reversion order was passed the Appellant
continued to hold the post till 1985 under the stay order granted by the Tribunal. So the reversion of the Appellant from the post of District
Inspector of Local Funds (Accounts) after a period of 11 years has done more harm than good.
He also relies on the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Shri Shekhar Ghosh Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, at page 333,
wherein it is held thus:
In this case, the Respondents accept that the Appellant was entitled to a hearing. All the necessary ingredients of principles of natural justice were
thus required to be complied with. The Appellant had not been given adequate opportunity of hearing inasmuch as: (i)the hearing was sought to be
given was a post-decisional one, which is bad in law; (ii) a copy of the complaint was not supplied to the Appellant at furtherance if not proposed
that a mistake was sought to be rectified; (iii) no charges were framed; (iv) no witness was examined; and (v) no inquiry officer arrived at any
finding that the Appellant was guilty of the charges levelled against him.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner brings it to the notice of this Court the decision of this Court, in S. Ganapathy v. Commissioner of
Commercial Taxes, Chennai and Ors. reported in 2006(3) MLJ 532 wherein it is held that ""settled law that once employee is conferred benefit of
promotion and pay scale, authority cannot penalize such employee after several years, on ground of mistake committed by authority"".
Conversely, it is the submission of the learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 that a charge as per Rule
17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules has been framed against the Petitioner on 22.07.1992 itself in regard to the
misconduct involving violation of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules and at the time of consideration of the panel, a charge
under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules is pending and as per the instructions contained in G.O. Ms. No.
368 Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 18.10.1993 pendency of charge under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules will be a bar for the promotion at the time of consideration of the promotion panel.
Proceeding further, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents contends that the Petitioner has been awarded with a
punishment of stoppage of increment for three months and as per G.O. Ms. No. 756, Public (Ser.K) Department dated 22.4.1964 an erroneous
order of promotion may be cancelled by the competent authority straightaway without providing any show cause notice to the affected individual
concerned and the first Respondent has acted in terms of the instruction of the Government referred to above and as a matter of fact, an erroneous
promotion can only be set-right by cancelling promotion.
Apart from the above, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submits that the Petitioner will be
considered for promotion for Co-operative Sub Registrar with actual seniority as he claims, but it can be implemented only after reverting him to
Senior Inspector post by canceling the erroneous promotion. In short, the action of the Respondents is sustainable in law.
In effect, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 contends that the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the
same is liable to be dismissed.
A perusal of the impugned order dated 4.10.2006 of the first Respondent in Rc. No. 39355/2005/EM.I(2) shows that the Petitioner as Senior
Inspector of Co-operative Societies has been included at serial No. 132 and he has been promoted as Co-operative Sub Registrar and allotted to
Villupuram Region as per proceedings of Joint Registrar(Intensive Agricultural Area Programme) proceedings Rc.3976/94/EM.1 dated 24.2.1994
and that when the panel has been approved by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, charges under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules have been pending against him. Also, a scrutiny of the impugned order dated 4.10.2006 of the first Respondent
inherently points out that the inclusion of the Petitioner''s name in the panel of Cooperative Sub Registrar as on 1.5.1993 is against the instruction
issued in the G.O. Ms. No. 368, Personnel and Administrative Department dated 18.10.1993 and his promotion as Cooperative Sub Registrar is
an erroneous one. As a matter of fact, as per G.O. Ms. No. 756, Public (Ser. K) Department dated 22.4.1964, the order of promotion may be
cancelled by the competent authority straight away without providing any show cause notice to the concerned individual. Moreover, in pursuance
of the directions of the Government, the name of the Petitioner has been cancelled in the approved panel of Senior Inspectors fit for promotion as
the Cooperative Sub Registrar as on 1.5.1993 communicated in the proceedings of the Registrar dated 30.12.1993.
Continuing further, the order of the Joint Registrar (Intensive Agricultural Area Programme) proceedings dated 24.2.1994 promoting the
Petitioner as Cooperative Sub Registrar has been cancelled and he has been reverted as Senior Inspector with effect from the date he joined as
Cooperative Sub Registrar. Consequent upon the cancellation of the Petitioner''s name in the panel of Senior Inspector fit for promotion as
Cooperative Sub Registrar as on 1.5.1993 and on reversion as Senior Inspector, the Petitioner has been allotted to Theni Region.
In short, the impugned order of the first Respondent dated 4.10.2006 refers to the Petitioner''s pay being in the category of the Senior
Inspector of Cooperative Societies. As far as the present case is concerned, it is not known as to how the Petitioner''s name has been included in
the panel for promotion as Cooperative Sub Registrar, when a charge under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal)
Rules is pending. The charge levelled against the Petitioner as per Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules in regard
to his conduct/act in indulging himself in private trade of selling tiles is a serious one and the said charge is a major one. The Petitioner is not
responsible for he was promoted as Cooperative Sub Registrar and he has not suppressed any information in this regard. It is for the
Employer/Appropriate Authority to consider the Petitioner for including his name in a panel for promotion. Though a plea is raised on behalf of the
Respondents that cancelling of erroneous promotion in respect of the Petitioner is not equivalent to any punishment and period of limitation does
not have any effect on the proceedings of the first Respondent dated 4.10.2006, this Court is of the considered view that such plea cannot be
countenanced in the eye of law.
Admittedly, the Petitioner has been promoted as Cooperative Sub Registrar on 24.2.1994 and he has joined in the promoted post on
23.12.1995. He has been recruited as Junior Assistant on 2.8.1976 through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. Subsequently, during the
year 1980, he has been promoted as Senior Inspector and later in the year 1983, he has been promoted as Senior Inspector. Undoubtedly, the
Petitioner is governed by the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and also the fundamental Rules, it passed beyond once
apprehension when the Petitioner has been issued with the Charge Memo dated 22.7.1992 with allegation that he has been engaged in private
trade of selling tiles. After conducting domestic enquiry, enquiry report has been submitted on 28.4.1994 whereby and where under, the charge
levelled against the Petitioner has been held to be proved and punishment of stoppage of increment without cumulative effect for three months, has
been ordered, then how his name has been included in the panel for promotion as Cooperative Sub Registrar without looking into the Rules and
regulations governing promotion at a time when the Petitioner has been promoted.
In M.P. No. 1 of 2006 in W.P. No. 9463 of 2006 this Court on 12.10.2006 has passed an order of interim stay and by means of an order
dated 1.12.2009 in M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2006 this Court has made the interim stay granted in M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2006 as an absolute one.
It is a well accepted principle in law that if an individual''s promotion is an erroneous one or not a proper one, by not following rules and
regulations that are in force, then certainly, the first Respondent or concerned authority, as the case may be, ought to have reverted the Petitioner
within a reasonable period. However, in the instant case, the Petitioner has been promoted as Cooperative Sub Registrar on 24.9.1994 and the
impugned order of reversion has been passed by the first Respondent on 4.10.2006 after a lapse of nearly twelve years.
Added further, the Petitioner''s punishment period has also come to an end. Soon after the reversion order passed by the first Respondent on
4.10.2006, the Petitioner has approached this Court on 10.10.2006 and has obtained an interim stay earlier in M.P. No. 1 of 2006 on
12.10.2006 and subsequently, the stay order has been made absolute in M.P. No. 1 of 2006 by this Court on 1.12.2009. The reversion of the
Petitioner from the post of Co-operative Sub Registrar to the level of Senior Inspector of Cooperative Societies after a period of twelve years, has
caused more harm than good, in the considered opinion of this Court. Even though the reversion order has been passed by the first Respondent on
4.10.2006, the Petitioner has continued to hold the post of Cooperative Sub Registrar till date under the stay order granted initially by this Court in
M.P. No. 1 of 2006 dated 12.10.2006 and consequently, made absolute in M.P. No. 1 of 2006 as per the order dated 1.12.2009.
Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that since the reversion of the Petitioner from the post of Co-operative Sub Registrar to the
post of Senior Inspector is after a lapse of twelve years, it has caused more harm than good.
Accordingly, in the light of detailed discussions and on an overall assessment of the facts and circumstances of the case, which float on surface
in an integral fashion, this Court allows the Writ Petition leaving the parties to bear their own costs and sets aside the order of reversion in Rc. No.
39355/2005/EM.I(2) dated 4.10.2006 Consequently, connected M. Ps are also closed. No costs.