High Court · 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 07.08.2007CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. KULASEKARANW.P.No.24224 of 2006 M.Balan... Petitioner -vs-1. Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, rep. By its Managing Director, Chepauk, Chennai.2. Legal Cell, rep. By its Law Officer, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Chepauk, Chennai-5.3. S.Anji Junior Accounts Officer, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Internal Audit Wing, Madurai.4. S.Jeyabalan, Junior Accounts Officer, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Head Office, Chepauk, Chennai.5. S.Jeyachandran, Junior Accounts Officer, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Internal Audit Wing, Coimbatore.... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as statedbelow.For Petitioner:Mr.Kandavadivel DoraisamiFor Respondents:Mrs.Sudarsana Sundarfor RR1 and 2* * * * * https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E RThis writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of Writ ofCertiorarified Manadamus to call for the records of the firstrespondent Board relating to B.P.Ms.No.68 (ENT-I Wing), dated18.7.2006 and quash the same in so far as Respondents 3 to 5 areconcerned and to direct the 1st respondent Board to include the nameof the petitioner in the panel of Junior Accounts Officers fit forpromotion as Accounts Officers in TWAD Board for the year 2006 belowSl.No.2 G.Sivaganesan (Seniority No.56) and above Sl.No.3 Anji(Seniority No.67).2. The petitioner joined in the Tamil Nadu Water Supply andDrainage Board in the year 1970 as Junior Assistant. He waspromoted as Assistant in the year 1974 and further promoted asDivisional Accountant in 1980. The said post of DivisionalAccountant is re-designated as Junior Accounts Officer. In the year1985, the petitioner was posted as Divisional Accountant,R.W.S.Division, Uthagamandalam and he worked there till 3.5.1989.It is the case of the petitioner that he found certainirregularities in the procurement of materials in R.W.S. Divisionand he immediately brought to the attention of the higher officials,viz., the Executive Engineer. On 15.11.1989, the petitioner wasshocked to receive the suspension order dated 11.11.1989. But, nocharge memo was issued despite several representations made by him.Thereafter, he was reinstated in service on 5.9.1991. Thepetitioner is also stated to have sent several representations tothe authorities requesting them to regularise the period ofsuspension between 15.11.1989 and 4.9.1991 as per Rule 54-B(3) and(4) of Fundamental Rules of Tamil Nadu Government. The petitioneralso filed a writ petition in W.P.No.15962 of 1996 before this Courtseeking regularisation of the period of suspension, which wasallowed by this Court by order dated 24.10.1998.3. While things are such, the respondents issued several chargememos against the petitioner, but, admittedly, they were all statedto have quashed. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearingfor the respondents that though liberty is granted while quashingthe said charge memos, they had not proceeded further. It is thecase of the petitioner that only one charge memo dated 12.1.2002 waspending during the relevant period, which was challenged by him byfiling a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.3778 of 2002,which was disposed of by order dated 1.4.2002, whereunder, it isobserved thus :-"... In case, the respondent does not dispose of theDisciplinary enquiry within a period of 6 months, it isdirected to consider the claim of the petitioners forfurther promotions as if there is no disciplinary enquiryis pending against them, if they are otherwise fit and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ eligible for promotion. It is further made clear that thepetitioners should not unduly delay or drag on theDepartment proceedings and if the petitioners are thecause for the delay of proceedings, the period taken bythe petitioners is to be excluded in computing the periodof six months."4. Pursuant to the above order, the respondent filed apetition seeking extension of time and this Court, by order dated27.11.2002, allowed the petition extending the time for a furtherperiod of one year. It is the case of the petitioner that in spiteof the above specific direction of this Court in the order dated1.4.2002, the respondents while drawing the panel for promotion on18.7.2006, did not include the name of the petitioner. Hence, thepetitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to quash thepanel of promotion dated 18.7.2006.5. Mr.Kandavadivel Doraisamy, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner, reiterated the contents of the affidavit filed insupport of the petition and submitted that there was only one chargememo dated 12.1.2002 was pending against the petitioner, which wasissued invoking Regulation 9(b) of the Tamil Nadu Water Supply andDrainage Board Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1972.It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that atthe time of disposal of W.P.No.3778 of 2002, this Court hascategorically observed that, in case, the disciplinary enquiry wasnot completed within the said time, the claim of the petitioner canbe considered for further promotion, as if there is nodisciplinary enquiry pending against the petitioner, if he isotherwise fit and eligible for promotion. It is further submittedby the learned counsel that the said enquiry proceedings werecompleted and punishment of stoppage of increment for a period ofone year without cumulative effect was ordered on 12.3.2007, whichis challenged by him in a separate writ petition in W.P.No.11176 of2007 and the same is pending. Pointing out the said fact, thelearned counsel submitted that on the date of drawing of panel on18.7.2006, the petitioner was very much eligible, but therespondents with ulterior motive, failed to include his name in thesaid panel and hence, he prayed for quashing the said panel dated18.7.2006.6. On the other hand, Mrs.Sudarsana Sundar, learned standingcounsel appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, submitted thatthough the disciplinary proceedings pursuant to the charge memodated 12.1.2002 was not completed as per the order dated 1.4.2002passed in W.P.No.3778 of 2002, there was a criminal case pendingagainst the petitioner and the respondents has also accordedsanction for prosecution and hence, his name was not considered. 7. Admittedly, there was only one charge memo dated 12.1.2002that was pending against the petitioner during the relevant period https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and even in respect of the said charge memo, this Court, whiledisposing of W.P.No.3778 of 2002 by order dated 1.4.2002, directedthe respondent to dispose of the disciplinary enquiry pendingagainst the petitioner within a period of six months and if theenquiry was not completed within the said time, directed to considerthe case of the petitioner for further promotion, as if nodisciplinary enquiry is pending against them, if otherwise he iseligible. The said period of six months to complete thedisciplinary enquiry was further extended by another one year at theinstance of the respondents, however, the direction to consider hisname for promotion was not altered. The learned standing counselfor the respondents/ Board submitted that there was a criminal casepending against the petitioner and others and the respondents alsoaccorded sanction for prosecution and that was the reason for notincluding the petitioner's name in the panel drawn on 18.7.2006.But, no details were furnished before this Court by the respondentas to when the sanction for prosecution was accorded and as towhether any charge sheet has been filed or not. However, thelearned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that nocharge sheet has been filed against the petitioner till date. Thelearned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of thisCourt the Government Letter dated 20.10.1997 in Ms.No.248, P & ARDepartment, relating to inclusion in the panel for promotion duringpendency of vigilance enquiry and submitted that mere registrationof cases in Courts need not be held against the officers, but ifcharge sheet has been filed in the criminal case, it should be heldagainst the officers. The said legal position is not disputed bythe learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2.8. In view of the discussion made above, this Court is of theconsidered opinion that there is no valid reason for not includingthe name of the petitioner while drawing the panel for promotion on18.7.2006 and hence, respondents 1 and 2 are directed to givepromotion to the petitioner from the date in which his juniors werepromoted and to extend all consequential benefits thereof. The saidexercise shall be considered by respondents 1 and 2 within a periodof eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. No costs.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrarsra https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Chepauk, Chennai.2. The Law Officer, Legal Cell, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Chepauk, Chennai-5.+1cc to M/s.Muthumani Doraisami, Advocate Sr 49546+1cc to Mr. Sudarsana Sundar,Advocate Sr 49212BK (CO)km/16.8.W.P.No.24224 of 2006