AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.S. Ramanathan, J.—Heard both sides.
The petitioner was appointed as Forester and joined service in Arasu Rubber Corporation Ltd. Nagercoil on 21.02.1980. Thereafter, he was directly recruited through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission as Forest Ranger and he worked as Forest Ranger, Social Forestry Range, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar Division from 01.11.2002 to 08.06.2005. In respect of certain lapses in the execution of TAP works known as Malaiyapuram Abedkar Nagar Project Works 2004-2005 and consequent loss to the Government, the Division Forest Officer, Social Forestry Range, Virudhnagar Division, by his proceedings, dated 06.03.2007 issued a show cause memo under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (D & A) Rule. The petitioner submitted his reply, dated 17.04.2007 wherein he has stated that he was not responsible for any such lapses, but the 4th respondent without considering the reply of the petitioner in proper perspective, based on the remarks by the Divisional Forest Officer, Sapthur Range, passed orders on 31.05.2007 imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years without any cumulative effect.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed appeal to the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Forest Administration) Chennai, and the said Authority also rejected the appeal, by his proceedings in Pro.No.Aa.Aa.3/68157-1/07, dated 21.05.2008, which is challenged in this writ petition.
Mr. M. Ravi, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the 3rd respondent without passing any speaking order and without application of mind, rejected the appeal and it is against the principles settled by this Court. He further contended that one Mr. I. Subramanian, who was also charged for the same misconduct and was imposed with the same penalty, filed the appeal before the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent modified the order of punishment and imposed strict warning and set aside the order of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect. Further he was also given promotion whereas the petitioner''s appeal was rejected and he was not given promotion.
The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the judgement of this Honourable court reported in 2008 Writ L.R.86 in the 1. the Joint Commissioenr of Police, Traffic zone, Vepery, Chennai, 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Traffic (North) Vepery, Chennai-7 v. G. Anandan PC 12163 and in W.P. No. 28396 of 2008 and W.P. No. 23751 of 2008 and submitted that in those judgments, it has been held that the punishment of stoppage of two increment without cumulative effect for two years is not a major punishment and therefore, even assuming that the appeal has been rejected, he can be considered for promotion during the currency of punishment.
The learned Additional Government Pleader, submitted that it is not correct to state that Mr. I. Subramanian was left off with a strict warning only. Accordingly to the learned Additional Government Pleader, the order of the 2nd respondent in letting of Mr. I. Subramanian with strict warning was reviewed and was set aside as per the Rule 35 and the original punishment was restored.
According to the learned Additional Government Pleader, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the respondents and after giving sufficient opportunities and on the basis of the records, the order was passed and there is no need to conduct any enquiry, as action was initiated under 17-A of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.
According to the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. M. Ravi, having regard to the judgments relied upon by him as stated above, even assuming that the charges are proved and the punishment was proper, it would not stand in the way of giving promotion.
In the judgments referred to above, the learned Judge relied upon the judmgnent in 2008 (5) MLJ 350 in the case of Subramanian v. Government of Tamil Nadu, rep by its Secretary, Chennai and Ors. and as per the judgment rendered by this Court, it is made clear that the punishment awarded to the petitioner viz., stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect should be considered as a minor punishment and the currency of the punishment should not dis-entitle the petitioner from claiming the promotion.
It is further seen that the original punishment imposed on Mr.I.Subramanian was also restored in the review petition. However, the 3rd respondent, while considering the appeal filed by the petitioner has summarily rejected the appeal without giving any finding and it is also a non speaking order. It has been held in the judgment reported in Director (Marketing) Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and Another Vs. Santosh Kumar, and in 2008(6) MLJ 882 in the case of T. Bapuraj v. Commissioner of Police, Chennai and Ors. that non speaking order of the appellate authority is liable to be set aside.
Therefore, the order of the 3rd respondent is set aside and the 3rd respondent is directed to consider the appeal of the petitioner on merits. Having regard to the fact that even assuming that the petitioner has suffered the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect, as per the judgement of this Honourable court as referred to above, the punishment is a minor punishment and hence, that would not stand in the way of considering the case of the petitioner for promotion and hence, the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to consider the name of the petitioner for promotion, including his name in the promotion panel, as Asst. conservator of Forest for the year 2008-2009 .
With the above observations, the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.