T. Murugesan vs The Principal Secretary to Government, Transport Department, Transport Commissioner, Chepauk and Deputy Transport Commissioner, Coimbatore

A. Arumughaswamy, J.—The petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the order passed by the third respondent dated 22.07.2004,

which was confirmed by the second respondent dated 06.04.2005 and further confirmed by the first respondent vide proceedings dated

26.04.2006 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to promote him as Superintendent together with all consequential service and

monetary benefits. The brief facts of the case as stated in the affidavit are as follows:-

a) The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant through Employment Exchange on 07.08.1992 and subsequently, he was promoted as

Assistant on 23.12.1999. The petitioner is maintaining a good record of service for the past 14 years.

b) While so, the third respondent had framed a charge memo against him on 20.11.2003 under Rule 3(a) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (D & A)

Rules on the allegation that he had sent two petitions to the Transport Commissioner, Chennai directly without sending them through proper

channel and for having used indecent language in the petitions against his superior officers. The petitioner had submitted his explanation on

25.11.2003. But after eight months, by an order dated 22.07.2004, the third respondent imposed the punishment of postponement of increment

for a period of six months without cumulative effect.

c) As against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the second respondent on 21.09.2004, which was dismissed on 06.04.2005.

Thereafter, he submitted a petition to the Head of the Department praying for cancellation of the punishment order. The said request was also

rejected by the first respondent on 26.04.2006. Challenging the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed without application of mind and there was

inordinate delay in passing the impugned order. Hence, he prayed to allow the writ petition.

The learned Additional Government Pleader contended that as per the service condition, no Government servant shall address directly any

superior authority in writing other than the one to which he is immediately subordinate in any matter relating to his official duties or affecting him

personally as a Government servant. The petitioner has violated the service conditions laid down by the Department for which he was charge

sheeted. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned orders passed by the respondents.

From a perusal of the records, it is seen that while the petitioner was working as Assistant in the Regional Transport Office, Erode, he was

deputed to Perundurai. It appears that on the request made by the petitioner, the Transport Commissioner had cancelled the transferred order and

retained him in the same station. It is the case of the petitioner that the Regional Transport Commissioner, Erode had kept him idle for 37 days

without giving him any work and started giving troubles and hence, he sent petitions to the Transport Commissioner on 29.09.2003 and

03.11.2003. Even if the petitioner has any grievance over his superiors, he should ventilate his grievance through proper channel and he cannot

send petitions directly.

I am of the view that though the petitioner is not correct in sending petitions directly violating the service conditions, the punishment imposed on

the petitioner viz., postponement of increment for a period of six months without cumulative effect is on the higher side. The respondent has not

denied that the writ petitioner was deputed on second time. Further other staffs have not been deputed second time within the short time. Hence,

the Joint Commissioner of Transport had developed bias on him has been proved. Since the punishment has been termed under Rule 17(a) of the

Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Disciplinary & Appeal) Rules, the punishment imposed by the respondents is disproportionate to the charge. The only

mistake committed by the petitioner is that he has addressed his grievance to the superior authority directly instead of sending the same through

proper channel.

For the foregoing reasons, the punishment of postponement of increment for a period of six months is disproportionate to the charge. Instead,

Censure"" alone is sufficient. If any amount has been deducted from the petitioner''s salary pursuant to the punishment order, the same shall be

refunded to him within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that ""Censure"" will not affect his

future promotion and seniority. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.