The Tamilnadu Water Supply and Drainage Board v. A. Abdul Wahab

of 2002, by which the learned Single Judge, by arriving at aconclusion that there was extraordinary unexplained delay in issuingcharges and taking note of the fact that all charges are not proved,has set aside the impugned order of punishment imposed on therespondent, who was the original writ petitioner, and allowed thewrit petition as prayed for.2. It is vehemently contended by Mr.Patty B.Jeganathan, learnedcounsel appearing for the appellants/Board that by setting aside theorder of punishment, which was impugned in the writ petition, thelearned Single Judge ought not to have allowed the writ petition intoto, since the prayer in the writ petition, apart from challengingthe order of punishment imposed against the respondent also relatesto providing him with promotion as Executive Engineer, as per theseniority, with attendant benefits, without reference to thepunishment imposed under the impugned order. His main contention isthat the post of Executive Engineer is not by automatic promotion,based on seniority, but the same is a selection post by promotionfrom the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, on merit and abilitybasis and therefore, allowing the writ petition in toto will amountto opening of floodgate and creating an impediment on the authorityfrom promoting Assistant Executive Engineer's as that of ExecutiveEngineer, based on merit and ability.3.1. The short facts, which led to the filing of the writpetition, are that the respondent/writ petitioner was appointed asJunior Engineer in the appellant/Board on 3.4.1975 and subsequently,he was promoted as an Assistant Executive Engineer. A charge memocame to be issued against the respondent by the second appellantdated 12.02.1998, by framing three charges, viz.,"Charge No.1: that he has failed to follow the rules andprocedure in carrying out the repair works for theelectrical motor and thereby caused a loss ofRs.1,02,820/- to the Sulthanpet Panchayat Union.Charge No.2: that in carrying out the repair works, hehas colluded with the Contractor, check measures theentries made by the Assistant Engineer in M Book andprepared the bill for the works not actually carriedout.Charge No.3: that he has acted against the instructionsissued in the Regulation 3 of the TWAD Board Officers'and Servants' Conduct Regulations, 1972 and thus becomeunfit for government service."3.2. The respondent has submitted his explanation and theEnquiry Officer, who was appointed, found that charge No.(1) alonestood proved and other two charges have not been proved. However, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Disciplinary Authority, having differed from the view taken bythe Enquiry Officer, issued a second show cause notice so far asCharge No.(3) is concerned, on the basis that Charge No.(3) isconsequential to charge No.(1) and as charge No.(1) was held proved,charge No.(3) ought to have been held proved. It is seen that to thesecond show cause notice the respondent has submitted hisexplanation. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority, by order dated16.12.2001, having concluded that both the charges, viz., ChargeNos.(1) and (3), have been proved, has imposed a punishment ofstoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect.3.3. Against the said order, the respondent has preferred anappeal before the Board, which was also dismissed by the Board byproceedings in B.P.Ms.No.209, (TWAD Estt. DP Wing) dated 13.11.2001,and it is against the said order, the respondent has filed the writpetition.3.4. The learned Single Judge, taking note of the followingfacts: (i) that the charges framed against the respondent on12.2.1998 relate to an occurrence stated to have takenplace in the year 1991 and therefore, there is anunexplained delay of seven years;(ii) that the respondent was not responsible foreffecting repair works at all and even as per theproceedings of the second appellant dated 22.4.1989, theresponsibility of the respondent is restricted totechnical functioning, and it was only the PanchayatPresident, who is responsible for assessment of repair,passing of bills, effecting of the payment, maintenanceof records, etc.; and(iii) that the appellants have not let in any validevidence or documents to controvert the said concretestand taken by the respondent, held that charge No.(1) cannot be stated to have been proved.3.5. In respect of Charge No.(3), the learned Single Judge,taking note of the fact that even though the respondent hadspecifically denied the said charge stating that he had followedRegulation (3) scrupulously, the second appellant had failed todiscuss the implications of Regulation (3) and the correspondinglapses committed by the respondent, held that charge No.(3) cannot bestated to have been proved against the respondent. 3.6. In such view of the matter, especially taking note of thefact that there is an extraordinary unexplained delay on the part ofthe appellants in framing charges against the respondent; that thecharges are not proved; and that various factors have not been https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ considered by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the AppellateAuthority, the learned Single Judge quashed the charges andconsequently, allowed the writ petition, which includes granting ofthe prayer to promote the respondent as Executive Engineer, as perhis seniority with attendant benefits, without reference to thepunishment imposed upon him.4.1. Mr.Patty B.Jeganathan, learned counsel appearing for theappellants/Board has contended that the finding of the learned SingleJudge that there has been an unexplained delay is not correct in thesense that the delay was also on the part of the respondent. Hisfurther contention is that the learned Single Judge has applied theprinciples of evidence, which are not applicable to a case ofdomestic enquiry, wherein it has to satisfy only with regard to thefollowing of principles of natural justice. 4.2. His contention is that when it is not even the complaint ofthe respondent that he was not given proper opportunity to defend hiscase, it is not open to the Court to go beyond that, in appreciationof the evidence, since it is only the decision making process thatcan be the reason for the Court to interfere under Article 226 of theConstitution of India and not the decision by itself. His contentionis that the process of judicial review is restricted up toverification whether Wednesbury's principles have been followed ornot and not as to the validity of the order of the authority. 4.3. He would also submit that the consequential order of thelearned single Judge in allowing the writ petition in toto, bydirecting the appellants to promote the respondent as ExecutiveEngineer can never be accepted and such direction cannot be given,even if the punishment granted to the respondent stands set aside.5.1. On the other hand, Mr.K.Doraisamy, learned senior counselappearing for the respondent would submit that, pending the writpetition, there was an interim order passed by this Court on 8.3.2002in WPMP.No.10724 of 2002 in W.P.No.7819 of 2002, by which there was adirection to consider the claim of the respondent to promote him,subject to any other disqualification. It was thereafter, by orderdated 8.8.2002, the respondent was temporarily promoted as per theTWAD Board Officers' and Servants' Conduct Regulations, 1972 asExecutive Engineer, based on the above said direction, to which postthe respondent has, in fact, joined. However, the respondent has notbeen paid the salary of Executive Engineer and he was only drawingthe salary of Assistant Executive Engineer, while he was allowed towork as an Executive Engineer. 5.2. The learned senior counsel also brought to the notice ofthis Court that a further order was passed on 22.8.2003 inWPMP.No.10724 of 2002 in W.P.No.7819 of 2002, closing the saidmiscellaneous petition, observing that as the respondent's right to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ promotion has been safeguarded and he was directed to be consideredfor promotion, subject to qualification, no further orders arerequired in the said petition.5.3. According to the learned senior counsel, when the firstcharge has nothing to do with the function of the respondent, thefirst charge should go and consequently, there is no question ofimplicating the respondent under charge No.(3). It is also hissubmission that charge No.(2), relating to which the respondent hasbeen exonerated fully, which is not in dispute, alone relates to thewilful character of the delinquent officer, since it says that therespondent had in collusion with the contractor prepared bill forwork, not actually done by the contractor and when that charge standsexonerated, the only charge which remains is that the respondent hasfailed to follow the Rules to carry out repair work for electricalmotor and in the absence of specific rules, which are enumerated, hissubmission is that the respondent is not guilty and therefore, thecharges have to go, as correctly held by the learned Single Judge. 5.4. The learned senior counsel would submit that when once theveracity of the charges go, even if the post of Executive Engineer isa selection post, the respondent is entitled to be considered for thesaid promotion, as if there was no charge pending against him at therelevant point of time and therefore, according to him theconsequential order of the learned Single Judge need not beinterfered with.6. The learned counsel for the appellant/Board, Mr.PattyB.Jeganathan as well as Mr.K.Doraisamy, learned senior counselappearing for the respondent have produced original files relating tothe enquiry.7. As far as the charges, which were framed against therespondent, which are enumerated above, it is not in dispute that thesecond charge, which relates to the allegation of collusion of therespondent with the contractor in checking measures, the entries madeby the Assistant Engineer in M Book and preparation of bills for theworks not actually carried out by the contractor, it was the specificcase of the respondent that the respondent, being an AssistantExecutive Engineer of the Board, is not entrusted with theappointment of contractors. It was his specific case that callingfor tender, maintaining records in that regard, making payment to thecontractors are all the functions of the Panchayat Commissioner andthe Assistant Executive Engineer has no role to play at all and hisfunction is only during the performance of the contract to check upthe technical function, if the work involved is more than Rs.1000/-,and he has to make an endorsement and according to him, he has donethe said work. In fact, the respondent has specifically raised theissue that after seven years charges have been levelled against himand he has also stated that the said contractor, who was blacklisted https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ by the Collector was directed to be given work by the same Collector,which itself shows that the Collector has approved the payments. Itwas also the respondent's reply that the Collector, in hisproceedings dated 4.7.1989, has constituted a Committee to supervisethe functioning of the electrical motors and the said Committee hasnever found fault with the respondent.8. On an analysis of the entire issue, the Enquiry Officer, inhis report, has clearly stated that it was the Panchayat President,who has called for the tender and it was only after verifying thework of the contractor with technical report, the Panchayat itselfhas released the amount of contract to the contractor and therefore,the Enquiry Officer has categorically found that the respondent hasabsolutely no role to play in respect of the second charge.9. As far as the remaining two charges are concerned, charge No.(1) relates to the non following of Rules in respect of the repair ofthe electrical motors, which has resulted in loss to the extent ofRs.1,02,820/- to the Panchayat. The respondent has clearly stated inhis explanation that he has been following the rules and was notresponsible for any loss caused to the Panchayat and in respect ofCharge No.(3), he has stated that he has not acted against Regulation3.10. The enquiry report makes it clear that in respect of therepair to the electrical motors and making payment of Rs.1,02,820/-,the same was done by the then Panchayat Commissioner and theemployees of the Panchayat, apart from the Assistant Engineer and therespondent, being the Assistant Executive Engineer, has only made anendorsement of verification and in handling the said amount and therespondent had no other role.11. The Enquiry Officer, who has dealt with alleged eighteenirregularities, while dealing with each and everyone of theirregularities, found that except in respect of the followingirregularities:(i)irregularity No.(4), which relates to the falling of handpipes in the well, which are to be rectified;(ii)irregularity No.(5), which relates to non functioning ofmotor due to certain fault in the panel board;(iii)irregularity No.(6), which relates to the particularsgiven by the fitter in respect of fixing of the hand pipe;(iv)irregularity No.(8), which relates to the payment ofamount for certain work done; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (v)irregularity No.(10), which relates to carrying out ofrepairs in the motor pumps;(vi)irregularity No.(11) relating to the fact of repair of 3HP submersible motor at Vellappanayakampalayam, in respectof which the respondent, being Assistant ExecutiveEngineer, is stated to have made an endorsement that thework was done;(vii)irregularity No.(12), which also relates to anendorsement stated to have been made by the respondent inrespect of certain payment;(viii)irregularity No.(14), which relates to the repair inthe panel board;(ix)irregularity No.(15), which relates to the allegedpurchase of PVC Coupling, which need not have beenpurchased;(x)irregularity No.(17), which relates to the effecting ofrepair of motors relating to the well; (xi)irregularity No.(18), relating to the fixing ofadditional pipe in the Odakkalpalayam Tank at VadapancherryPanchayat, in all other irregularities the respondent is not involved. TheEnquiry Officer has, in fact, found that in respect of the above saidirregularities there was a loss to the panchayat to an extent ofRs.51,282/-.12. A perusal of the file produced by the learned counsel forthe appellant/Board and also the original enquiry report placed byboth the counsel makes it clear that with regard to the first charge,the respondent being an Assistant Executive Engineer has given hisexplanation in respect of the various irregularities alleged,especially eighteen irregularities and in his explanation, he hasmade it clear that it was only after the Assistant Engineer, who isthe authority, apart from the Panchayat Commissioner and otherOfficers of the Panchayat, who have, in fact, effected the variousworks, he, having supervisory control, had endorsed the variousorders of the Assistant Engineer. 13. A reference to the entire file makes it very clear that theappellants have not shown any Rules or procedure in carrying out therepair work and the question of not following the Rules and procedurewould come only when such rules are produced before the delinquentofficer. This is relevant because it has been the reply of thedelinquent officer that he has followed the rules as per the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ convention and being an Assistant Executive Engineer, havingsupervisory control, the act of the Panchayat Commissioner as well asthe Assistant Engineer, who are actually involved in carrying out ofthe contract work by the Contractors, was only counter signed byhim. This is relevant because in respect of the the second charge,which imputes the motive on the respondent, as if he has colludedwith the contractor and the Assistant Engineer in making entries in MBook and preparing the bill for the works not actually stated to havebeen carried out by the contractor, which is serious in nature, therespondent has been totally exonerated as per the Enquiry Officer'sreport and the same was also accepted by the Disciplinary Authorityand the Appellate Authority. In such circumstances, it wascertainly incumbent on the part of the appellant/Board to explicitlyexplain the rules and procedure, which contemplate the duty on thepart of the Assistant Executive Engineer to satisfy himself as to theactual execution of the work before making endorsement. In theabsence of such Rules, which ought to have been placed by theAppellant/Board, it is not possible to accept the finding of theDisciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority in respectof Charge No.(1). That was squarely the reason given by the learnedSingle Judge, apart from holding that valid evidence has not beenproduced to show that the respondent was involved in any one of theirregularities in Charge No.(1). 14. That apart, admittedly, in respect of the work, which wascarried out in the year 1991, the charges came to be framed againstthe respondent in the year 1998, after the lapse of seven years andthe Disciplinary Authority has taken another four years for thepurpose of deciding, which was on 16.2.2001. Certainly, the delayand the protracted proceedings by the appellants have caused greatprejudice to the delinquent Officer. 15. In departmental proceedings, the delay in initiating thesame has a tendency of not only causing mental agony to thedelinquent, but also it would put the delinquent in a delicateposition, since after passage of many years it would not be possiblefor him to give proper explanation to the various charges. Merelygiving an opportunity in those cases to give explanation is notsufficient, because the principles of natural justice are certainlynot to be taken as empty formality.16. The concept of audi alteram partem, which is a celebratedconcept of natural justice, by which nobody can be imposed with apunishment without being given sufficient opportunity, has a meaningthat the sufficient opportunity must be considered in its properperspective and not by mechanically giving time to submitexplanation. By passage of time, the delinquent is in adisadvantageous position of not giving proper explanation, since itrequires minute details and certainly, mere giving of time is notgoing to render proper justice in giving him an opportunity. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

17. The respondent herein, in the writ petition, has clearlytaken a ground that by long delay in framing charges and conductingenquiry it has resulted in miscarriage of justice. In the counteraffidavit filed by the appellants in the writ petition, the onlyground raised is that the matter was pending before the Government,which has remitted the case to the Board only on 23.12.1997, afterdetailed enquiry from Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption andit was only thereafter, action was taken. The relevant portion readsas follows:"Even though, the irregularity occurred during 1990-91, theGovernment remitted the case to Board only on 23.12.1997 after thedetailed enquiry conducted by Director of Vigilance and AntiCorruption. Action was initiated after the receipt of the GovernmentOrder and hence, there was no delay in the initiation of thedepartmental action against the petitioner."18. Therefore, the appellants being a Governmental authority isonly finding fault with the Government for the pendency. It is notthe case of the appellants that the respondent was prosecuted for thealleged charges. In such view of the matter, the question to bedecided is as to whether such a delay of nearly seven years inframing charges against the respondent would be prejudicial ordetrimental to the interest of the delinquent officer.19. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh, AIR 1990 SC 1308,while considering the delay of twelve years in initiatingdisciplinary proceedings against the delinquent officer withoutoffering any proper explanation, taking note of a similar defence bythe Government that the investigation was going on, the Supreme Courthas held that permitting such delay will be unfair, in the followingterms:"4. The appeal against the order dated 16.12.1987has been filed on the ground that the Tribunal shouldnot have quashed the proceedings merely on the ground ofdelay and laches and should have allowed the enquiry togo on to decide the matter on merits. We are unable toagree with tis contention of the learned Counsel. Theirregularities which were the subject-matter of theenquiry is said to have taken place between the year1975-1977. It is not the case of the department thatthey were not aware of the said irregularities, if any,and came to know it only on 1987. According to themeven in April, 1977 there was doubt about theinvolvement of the officer in the said irregularitiesand the investigations were going on since then. Ifthat is so, it is unreasonable to think that they wouldhave taken more than 12 years to initiate the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ disciplinary proceedings as stated by the Tribunal.There is no satisfactory explanation for the inordinatedelay in issuing the charge memo and we are also of theview that it will be unfair to permit the departmentalenquiry to be proceeded with at this stage. In any casethere are no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal'sorders and accordingly we dismiss this appeal."(emphasis supplied)20. Following the said judgment, in a later judgment rendered inP.V.Mahadevan v. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board,2005 (4) CTC 403, wherein in respect of an act alleged to have beencommitted in 1990, charge memo was issued in 2000, for which theexplanation given by the Housing Board was that lapses came tolimelight in the audit report of 1994-1995, and taking note of thefact that the employee concerned reached superannuation, the SupremeCourt has held that such a protracted disciplinary proceeding, whichwould cause more mental agony and suffering to an employee, was morethan the punishment. In fact, the Supreme Court, in no uncertainterms, has held that such protracted disciplinary proceedings shouldbe avoided not only in the interest of the Government employee, butalso in the public interest, for inspiring confidence in the minds ofthe Government employees. The portion of the judgment is as follows:"13. Section 118 specifically provides for submission ofthe abstracts of the accounts at the end of every yearand Section 119 relates to annual audit of accounts.These two statutory provisions have not been compliedwith at all. In the instant case the transaction tookplace in the year 1990. The expenditure ought to havebeen considered in the accounts of the succeeding year.In the instant case the audit report was ultimatelyreleased in the 1994-1995. The explanation offered forthe delay in finalising the audit report cannot standscrutiny in view of the above two provisions of theTamil Nadu Act 17. It is now stated that the appellanthas retired from service. There is also no acceptableexplanation on the side of the respondent explaining theinordinate delay in initiating departmental disciplinaryproceedings. Mr.R.Venkataramani, learned Senior Counselis appearing for the respondent. His submission that theperiod from the date of commission of the irregularitiesby the appellant to the date on which it came to theknowledge of the Housing Board cannot be reckoned forthe purpose of ascertaining whether there was any delayon the part of the Board in initiating disciplinaryproceedings against the appellant has no merits andforce. The stand now taken by the respondent in thisCourt in the counter affidavit is not convincing and is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ only an afterthought to give some explanation for thedelay.14. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinionthat allowing the respondent to proceed further with thedepartmental proceedings at this distance of time willbe very prejudicial to the appellant. Keeping a higherGovernment official under charges of corruption anddispute integrity would cause unbearable mental agonyand distress to the officer concerned. The protracteddisciplinary enquiry against a government employeeshould, therefore, be avoided not only in the interestsof the government employee but in public interest andalso in the interests of inspiring confidence in theminds of the government employees. At this stage, it isnecessary to draw the curtain and to put an end to theenquiry. The appellant had already suffered enough andmore on account of the disciplinary proceedings. As amatter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of theappellant due to the protracted disciplinary proceedingswould be much more than the punishment. For themistakes committed by the department in the procedurefor initiating the disciplinary proceedings, theappellant should not be made to suffer."(emphasis supplied)21. The above said issue was considered by one of us(P.Jyothimani,J.) in the judgment rendered in R.Tirupathy v. TheDistrict Collector, Madurai District, 2006 (2) CTC 574, wherein alsoin respect of the purchase of uniforms during the years 1994-95 and1995-96, charge memo came to be framed in the year 2005 against thePanchayat Officials. The stand of the authority in that case wasthat the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department enquiry was pendingand that was the reason for the delay. By relying upon the abovesaid judgments of the Supreme Court, laying down the law on thesubject relating to the laches in initiating disciplinaryproceedings, this Court held that unexplained delay and theexplanation adduced for such long delay cannot be a ground for thepurpose of proceeding with disciplinary proceedings against adelinquent officer.22. In such view of the matter and taking into consideration theconsistent judicial precedents on this issue, we have no hesitationto conclude that the appellants have not given any proper reason forsuch a long delay, especially in the absence of production of therelevant Rules and procedure. Therefore, there is no reason tointerfere with the order of the learned Single Judge in this regard.23. As far as the consequential order of directing theappellants to promote the respondent as Executive Engineer as per the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ seniority, it is no doubt true that the post of Executive Engineer isa selection post and not merely based on seniority such post can beconferred, since the same requires the consideration of merit andability by the appointing authority. It is also true that it wasonly by virtue of the interim order directing the appellants toconsider the claim of the respondent for promotion, ultimately, theappellants promoted the respondent as Executive Engineer on atemporary basis and without prejudice to the claim of the person whowill be regularly appointed after consideration of their merit andseniority and that the said temporary promotion will not confer anyright for future promotion as Executive Engineer. But, it is not thecase of the appellants that by such promotion given to the respondentas Executive Engineer any other third party's right has beenaffected. 24. It is unfortunate that the appellants, even though havepromoted the respondent as Executive Engineer as per the order ofthis Court, have not fixed the salary of Executive Engineer. Thelearned senior counsel for the respondent submits that from the saiddate of promotion as Executive Engineer, viz., from 8.8.2002, therespondent has been paid the salary of the Assistant ExecutiveEngineer, but made to work as Executive Engineer as per the promotionand this would only reflect the sorry state of affairs existing inthe Board. It is not the case of the appellants that the respondentwas not otherwise qualified for promotion to the post of ExecutiveEngineer. The only reason, which has been adduced so far, for notconsidering the case of the respondent for promotion as ExecutiveEngineer, is the pendency of the charges. 25. The Supreme Court has held that mere pendency of chargeitself is not a ground for denying a person the promotion to the nextpost. While considering the above delay in disciplinary proceedings,it was held in State of Punjab v. Chaman Lal Goyal, [1995] 2 SCC 570that the Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders, which are justand equitable, in the circumstances of the case, in the followingterms:"11. The principles to be borne in mind in this behalfhave been set out by a Constitution Bench of this Courtin A.R.Antulay v. R.S.Nayak, [1992] 1 SCC 225. Thoughthe said case pertained to criminal prosecution, theprinciples enunciated therein are broadly applicable toa plea of delay in taking the disciplinary proceedingsas well. In paragraph 86 of the judgment, this Courtmentioned the propositions emerging from the severaldecisions considered therein and observed that"ultimately the court has to balance and weigh theseveral relevant factors – balancing test or balancingprocess – and determine in each case whether the rightto speedy trial has been denied in a given case". Ithas also been held that, ordinarily speaking, where the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Court comes to the conclusion that right to speedy trialof the accused has been infringed, the charges, or theconviction, as the case may be, will be quashed. At thesame time, it has been observed that that is not theonly course open to the court and that in a given case,the nature of the offence and other circumstances may besuch that quashing of the proceedings may not be in theinterest of justice. In such a case, it has beenobserved, it is open to the Court to make such otherappropriate order as it finds just and equitable in thecircumstance of the case."(emphasis supplied) 26. One another factor, which is relevant in the facts andcircumstances of the present case is that the respondent, in theaffidavit filed in support of the writ petition, has extracted theremarks of the higher officials, namely the Reporting Officers, abouthis performance. The relevant portion of the affidavit is asfollows:PeriodReportingOfficerColumnRemarks07.07.1995 to30.5.1996Collectorof SalemConduct andCharacterVery GoodFitness ofpromotionFitGeneral narrativewith reference tothe nature of workturned out specialresponsibilitiesThis officer has done acommendable job in thedrinking water supplymanagement in Salem Distwhich at 35 Blocks thelargest in the State. Hewas an asset to theDistrict Admn.Overall ratingOutstandingSpecificrecommendations ofthe ReportingOfficerAn outstanding officerand an asset. A fit andproper candidate forpromotion to the nextlevel.31.5.1996to23.6.1997Collectorof SalemConduct andCharacterGoodFitness ofpromotionFitOverall ratingVery Good https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ PeriodReportingOfficerColumnRemarksSpecificrecommendations ofthe ReportingOfficerA very sincere and hardworking officer whodeserves promotion tohigher level in allrespects.01.04.2000 to31.3.2001ExecutiveEngineer,SiruvaniMaintenanceDivisionCapacity to prepareplans and accurateestimatesExcellentAttitude towardsthe publicVery GoodConduct andCharacterVery GoodFitness ofpromotionFit for promotion on histurnGeneral narrativewith reference tothe nature of workturned out specialresponsibilitiesHis performance inoffice works and as wellas in field works isvery very satisfactoryOverall ratingVery goodSpecificrecommendations ofthe ReportingOfficerThis officer's name hasto be considered for hispromotion since he isfit 27. It is, therefore, clear that the performance of therespondent as an Engineer is not found fault with by anybody,including the District Collector, at any point of time. In fact, onmany occasions, the District Collector has made remarks that therespondent's performance in office work as well as in field work are"very very satisfactory" and "outstanding".28. In such view of the matter, the submission made by Mr.PattyB.Jeganathan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants that suchopinion of the higher officials can be obtained at any point of time,has absolutely no meaning. If the opinion of the higher officials ofthe delinquent officer is not binding, it is not known as to whatshould be the criteria for deciding about the merit and ability ofthe Officer, for the purpose of conferring promotion on him. If thecontention of the learned counsel for the appellants is accepted, itwould only result in chaos in the service jurisprudence. There isabsolutely no reason to disbelieve the said portion of the affidavit https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ filed by the respondent in the writ petition, especially when it isnot denied by the appellant/Board in the counter affidavit filed inthe writ petition.29. In such circumstances, there is no difficulty to concludethat the respondent is entitled to promotion as Executive Engineer,however such order can be passed promoting him as Executive Engineeronly by the appellants, being the Appointing Authority and not bythis Court. This Court, while leaving it to the wisdom of theappellants/ Appointing Authority, makes it clear that there is noacceptable reason adduced by the appellants so far for the purpose ofdenying such promotional benefit to the respondent. It is alsoexpected that the respondent, who has already attained the age ofsuper-annuation may not be entitled for a fresh promotion asExecutive Engineer, but the order passed by the second appellantdated 8.8.2002 has to be necessarily continued till the date ofretirement, except of course, if there are any other legalimpediments like that of any subsequent developments, which are notbrought to the notice of this Court by either sides. If, really, therespondent has not been paid the salary of Executive Engineer from8.8.2002, it is made clear that the appellants shall confer suchbenefit to the respondent by passing appropriate orders,expeditiously, in any event within a period of eight weeks from thedate of receipt of a copy of this order. Except clarifying the same,it is not possible to interfere with the order of the learned SingleJudge. The writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.sasiTo:1. The Managing Director Tamilnadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.2. The Managing Director and Competent Authority Tamilnadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.+ 1 CC to Mr.Muthumani Doraisamy,Advocate,SR.14827+ 1 CC to Mr.Patty B.Jeganathan,Advocate,SR.14584W.A.No.1178 of 2007KJI(CO)EM/21.4