Madrasdated High Court · 2025

W.P.No.33449 of 20164.The Executive Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, TANGEDCO Aarani, Thiruvanamalai. …RespondentsPrayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarifide Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the proceedings 4th respondent in Ku. No.591-1/EE/O&M/Aarani/Nir/Asst./Co.O.N/2013 dated 19.03.2014/07.04.2014 and the order of third respondent dated 26.08.2014 made in Ku.No.317/168/Nip/3/U1/Co/Me Mu/2014 and the letter No.054727/853/G26 /2015 dated 11.09.2015 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents to the promote the petitioner to the post of Assessor Grade I as per his representation dated 07.01.2016. For Petitioner : M/s.A.Arulmozhi For Respondents : Mr.C.Manoharan for R1to R4 ORDERThis writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings vide Ku. No.591-1/EE/O&M/Aarani/Nir/Asst./Co.O.N/2013 dated 07.04.2014 passed by the 4th respondent as confirmed by the 3rd respondent in proceedings 2/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33449 of 2016vide Ku.No.317/168/Nip/3/U1/Co/Me Mu/2014 and the letter No.054727/853/G26 /2015 dated 11.09.2015 issued by the 2nd respondent imposing punishment on the petitioner. The petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings by issuing a charge memo dated 01.04.2013 containing a single charge. The said charge read as under:jpU/,uh/ghg[ fzf;fPl;lhsh; 2k; epiy efh; nkw;F Muzp mth;fs; te;jthrp kpd;rhu gzpahsh; Tl;Lwt[ kw;Wk; fld; r';fj;jpy; fld; bgWtjw;fhd tpz;zg;gk; gotk; 28 d;Kjy; gf;fj;jpy; ,sepiy bghwpahsh;. efh; nkw;F Muzp mth;fs; 23/02/11 ifbahg;gkpl;L mjd; mLj;j gf;fj;jpy; braw;bghwpahsh;-,&g-Muzp mth;fshy; 09/06/11 md;W ifbahg;gkpl;L mYtyf Kj;jpiuapl;L mspj;Js;s tpz;zg;gj;ij (K:y Mtzk;) ifapy; itj;Jf; bfhz;L ntz;Lbkd;nw jdf;F jfty; Mizaj;jpy; ju kWf;fpwhh;fs; vd;W jd;Dila nky; mjpfhhpahfpa braw;bghwpahsh;-,&g-Muzp mth;fs; fy';fg;gLj;Jk; tifapy; jkpH;ehL jfty; 3/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33449 of 2016Mizaj;jpy; Fw;wr;rhl;L kpijg;gLj;jp Twpa[s;shh; braw;bghwpahsh;-,&g-Muzp mth;fshy; ifbahg;gkpl;l gotk; 28 I te;jthrp kpd;rhu gzpahsh; Tl;Lwt[ kw;Wk; fld; r';fj;jpy; rkh;g;gpj;J fld; bgwhky; mg;gotj;ij braw;bghwpahsh;-,&g-Muzp mYtyfj;jpy; xg;gilf;fhky; jd;dplk; itj;Jf;bfhz;L kPz;Lk; fld; bghUtjw;fhd tpz;zg;gk; gotk; 28 I ,sepiy bghwpahsh;. efh; nkw;F Muzp mth;fsplkpUe;J ifbahg;gk; bgw;W me;j gotj;ij Tl;Lwt[ r';fj;jpy; rkh;g;gpj;J fld; bgw;Ws;shh;/ ,r;bray; jkpH;ehL kpd;rhu thhpa vGj;JJiw gzpahsUf;fhd epiyahid vz;/19(XXI) d; go Fw;wkhf fUjg;gLfpwJ/ 2.The said charge is sought to be established based upon two documents namely : 1.brayhsh; te;jthrp kpd;rhu gzpahsh; Tl;Lwt[ rpf;fdk; kw;Wk; fld; r';fk;/4/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33449 of 2016 2/ Kd;dhs; ,sepiy bghwpahsh; efh; nkw;F Muzp jw;nghJ ,sepiy bghwpahsh;-,&g-efh; bra;ahW (thhpa jug;g[ gpujpepjp)/3.A perusal of the charges leveled against the petitioner discloses that the petitioner has exaggerated the allegations against his superior officer by filing an appeal before Tamil Nadu Information Commission, on the ground that the information given by the respondent board was deliberately refused to be provided to him. Basis for such allegations is that the information sought by the petitioner is with regards to his loan application submitted in Form No.28 and inspite of returning the said Form to the petitioner, the petitioner has sought for certain informtaion suppressing the fact that the Form 28 was returned to him and was in his cutody. The TamilNadu State Information Commission in its order dated 26.07.2012 made certain observations in the same lines and directed the Registrar of the State Information Commission to bring the same to the notice of the concerned Department to take appropriate action against the petitioner for exaggeration of such allegation and making accusation against his superior.5/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33449 of 20164.From the perusal of the material on record, it is noticed that the petitioner has submitted a loan application in Form No.28 on 23.02.2011, which was returned to the petitioner on 09.06.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted another loan application in Form 28 and awailed the benefit of loan. However, the petitioner filed an application under RTI Act 2005 seeking information as to why the respondents have taken more than 90 days for processing the loan application submitted by the petitioner in the first instance. 5.Aggrieved by the action of the State Information Officer in failing to furnish appropriate information in response to the said RTI application submitted by the petitioner on 27.08.2011, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission. The said appeal of the petitioner was considered to be exaggeration of the allegation against the Information Officer, the State Commission, opined that serious action has to be taken against the petitioner, by an order dated 26.07.2012. The State 6/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33449 of 2016Commission came to such a conclusion on the ground that the loan application was returned to the petitioner but suppressing the said fact that the petitioner has sought for certain information from the State Information Officer/Superintendent. From the order passed by the State Commission, it is noticed that the said conclusion of the State Commission is totally absurd. Though, the loan application was submitted by the petitioner in Form 28 as early as on 23.02.2011 which was subsequently returned to him on 09.06.2011, the petitioner has not sought for information with regard to the status of the said application and he has sought information only with regard to the reason as to why the respondents have taken more than 90 days for processing the loan application submitted by the petitioner. Therefore, the State Information Commission totally misconstrued the context in which the petitioner submitted an application under RTI Act before the State Information Commission/Superintendent of the Respondent/Board and concluded that the petitioner has exaggerated the issue and suggested to take serious action against the petitioner. It is pursuant to the said order dated 26.07.2012, the respondent/Board initiated action against the petitioner by issuing the charge memo in question. The respondents after having conducted 7/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33449 of 2016an enquiry into the charges leveled against the petitioner an order was passed on 19.03.2014 imposing the punishment of stoppage of his next increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect excluding any period, if any, spent on leave. Aggrieved by the said order dated 19.03.2014 the petitioner filed an appeal before the 3rd respondent, who by an order dated 26.08.2014 reduced the said punishment to that of stoppage of increment for a period of six months without cumulative effect.6.From the above, it is noticed that the basis for initiating disciplinary action against the petitioner is the order passsed by the State Information Commission dated 26.07.2012 and the conclusion arrived at by the said Information Commission has found to be result of total mis-conception of the facts and on the nature of information sought for by the petitioner. 7.Further, as seen from the provisions of Right to Information Act 2005, there is no provision in the entire part which enables the said Information Commission to recommend for taking disciplinary action against 8/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33449 of 2016a person who submitted an application seeking for certain information from the State Information Commission. The provisions of the Act, in specific, sections 19 and 20, only provide procedures for entertaining an appeal by the State Information Commission and also deals with the penalty that can be imposed on the State Information Officers and/or Central Information Officers, but not on the persons who make applications seeking information. In the absence of any such power conferred with the State Information Commission, the Commission ought not to have expressed an opinion by recommending to take serious action against the petitioner and also directing the Registrar to communicate the said order to the concerned authorities for taking appropriate action against the petitioner. If at all, the appeal filed by the petitioner was found to be frivolous or not maintenable, it is for the said Information Commission to reject the said appeal. Under no circumstances, the State Information Commission can be said to have the power to direct initiation of the action against such applicant. Thus, the impugned disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner based upon the opinion expressed by the State Information Commission in its order dated 26.07.2012 cannot be sustained. 9/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33449 of 20168.From the materials on record, it is also noticed that the petitioner, though, was found eligible for promotion to the post of Assessor Grade II which was subsequently re-designated as Assessor Grade I was deprived of his promotion because of the operation of the punishment in question i.e., the punishment that was imposed by order dated 19.03.2014 for the panel year 2014 for which the crucial date happens to be on 05.05.2014 during which panel year a similarly situated like the petitioner was considered for promotion to the post of Assessor Grade I. Thus, it is only because of the punishment that was imposed through proceedings by an order dated 19.03.2014, as modified by order 26.08.2014, the petitioner's case was not considered for promotion to the post of Assessor Grade I in the year 2014. As this Court has come to a conclusion that the disciplinary proceedings are found to have been initiated on total mis-conception of factual aspects, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled for promotion to the post of Assessor Grade I in the year 2014 with reference to his eligibility as on 05.05.2014. 9.Accordingly, both the impugned orders are quashed. The 10/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33449 of 2016respondents are directed to promote the petitioner to the post of Assessor Grade I with reference to the eligibility as on 05.05.2014 and issue appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.10.Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. 29.01.2025vsn11/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33449 of 2016To 1.The Chairman, TANGEDCO Anna Salai, Chennai- 600 0022.The Chief Engineer (Personal), TANGEDCO Anna Salai, Chennai- 600 0023.The Superintendent Engineer, TANGEDCO Thiruvanamalai Electricity Distribution Circle, Thiruvanamalai.4.The Executive Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, TANGEDCO Aarani, Thiruvanamalai.12/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33449 of 2016MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J. vsnW.P.No.33449 of 201613/14