M.Balasubramaniam v. The Inspector General of Registration

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE: 09-07-2008CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDRENWrit Petition No.27754 of 2006(O.A.No.2467 of 1996)M.Balasubramaniam.. Petitioner.Versus1.The Inspector General of Registration,Santhome High Road,Mylapore, Madras-600 004.2.The District Registrar, Namakkal, Salem District... Respondents.Prayer: This petition has been filed seeking for a writ ofCertiorari, to quash the order of punishment of stoppage ofincrement for a period of three months without cumulative effectimposed by the 2nd respondent in No.5627/A1/93, dated 25.2.1994 andconnected appellate order of the 1st respondent in No.40134/A3/94,dated 29.9.1995.For Petitioner : Mr.S.V.VadiveluFor Respondents : Mr.B. K. Girish Neelakandan Additional Government Pleader O R D E RHeard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner andthe learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for therespondents.2. The petitioner has stated that he had entered service as aJunior Assistant, on 1.6.76, in the Registration Department. Hewas promoted as an Assistant, on 2.5.94. On 15.11.93, a charge hadbeen framed against the petitioner by the second respondent underRule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Classification,Control and Appeal) Rules, alleging that he had not joined the newStation on transfer and thereby, caused inconvenience to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Department. The petitioner had submitted his explanation on8.11.93, wherein he had stated that from 14.8.93 to 13.10.93, hehad gone on medical leave. The petitioner had also enclosed amedical certificate in support of his leave application. However,the second respondent without proper application of mind, and bytaking into account irrelevant factors, had imposed the punishmentof stoppage of increment for a period of three months withoutcumulative effect in his proceedings No.5627/A1/93, dated 25.2.94.The petitioner had preferred an appeal to the first respondent.The first respondent had rejected the appeal, on 29.9.95, statingthat the petitioner had contravened Rule 20 (1) of the Tamil NaduGovernment Servants Conduct Rules. In such circumstances, thepetitioner has preferred an Original Application before the TamiNadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.2467 of 1996, which hasbeen transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.27754 of2006.3. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents,the allegations made by the petitioner have been denied. It hasbeen stated that the petitioner is an Assistant working in theoffice of the Joint II Sub Registrar, Namakkal. When thepetitioner was working in the Sub Registrar's Office at Mohanur,the District Registrar, Namakkal, had issued an order videproceedings No.5627/A1/93, dated 30.7.93, transferring thepetitioner to the office of the District Registrar, Namakkal.Instead of joining at the new Station, the petitioner hadproceeded on leave and had manoeuvred to have the order oftransfer cancelled. He had also exerted pressure on the DistrictRegister by bringing in political and other influences to get theorder of transfer cancelled. Therefore, disciplinary action hadbeen initiated against the petitioner under Rule 17(a) of theTamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Based onthe disciplinary proceedings, the punishment of stoppage ofincrement of three months without cumulative effect had beenimposed on the petitioner. The petitioner had preferred an appealagainst the said order of the Inspector General of Registration.Since the appeal filed by the petitioner had been rejected, anoriginal application had been filed before the Tamil NaduAdministrative Tribunal in O.A.No.2467 of 1996. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted thatthe charge against the petitioner is that the petitioner had goneon leave without joining the new Station on transfer. The impugnedorder passed by the second respondent does not take into accountthe Medical Certificate produced by the petitioner in support ofhis request for leave on medical grounds. It has been furtherstated that the second respondent had stated in his order, dated25.2.94, that Political and other influence were brought on theDistrict Registrar, Namakkal, to retract the impugned order. Even https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ though, nothing has been stated in the charge made against thepetitioner that he had brought in political or other influenceagainst the order of transfer given to him. The impugned order ofthe second respondent as well as the appellate order passed by thefirst respondent, seem to rely on such allegations while coming totheir conclusions. It has also been stated that the petitioner hasnot been given an opportunity to meet the allegations made againsthim. Thus, the impugned orders are contrary to law, arbitrary andagainst the concept of equality enshrined in Article 14 of theConstitution of India. It has also been stated that when thepetitioner had produced a medical certificate in support of hismedical condition, the second respondent had totally ignored thesame. Thus, there is total non-application of mind on the part ofthe second respondent in passing the impugned order against thepetitioner. Thus, the impugned order passed by the secondrespondent and the order passed by the first respondent in theappeal preferred by the petitioner are illegal, ultravires andcontrary to the principles of natural justice and therefore,unsustainable in the eye of law. 5. Per contra the learned counsel appearing on behalf of therespondents had submitted that the impugned order passed by thesecond respondent, imposing the penalty of stoppage of incrementfor a period of three months without cumulative effect passed, onthe petitioner is in accordance with law and therefore, theoriginal application filed by the petitioner challenging the samecannot be sustained. The petitioner had exerted pressure on theDistrict Registrar, Namakkal, by bringing in political and otherinfluence to cancel the order of transfer issued to the petitionerinstead of joining duty in the Station to which he had beentransferred. The petitioner had gone on leave without priorpermission and without the authorisation of the authoritiesconcerned. Therefore, a charge memo had been issued to thepetitioner. After considering the explanation submitted by thepetitioner the second respondent had imposed the punishment ofstoppage of increment of three months without cumulative effect onthe petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner hadfiled an appeal before the first respondent. The first respondentafter analysing the merits of the case had confirmed the orderpassed by the second respondent by dismissing the appeal. In suchcircumstances, the reliefs sought for by the petitioner ought notbe granted by this Court. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner had placed relianceon the following decisions in support of his contentions.i) Krishna Chandra Tandon V. The Union of India(AIR 1974 SC 1589);ii) Joginder Chandra Dass V. Union of India andothers (1989 (6) SLR 524); https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ iii) State Bank of India and others V. D.C.Aggarwal& Anr. (JT 1992(6) S.C. 673);iv) U.P. State Agro Industrial Corpn. Ltd. V. PadamChand Jain (1995(4) SLR 742);v) Mohd. Quaramuddin (Dead) by LRs V. State of A.P(1995(7) SLR 330).7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, theimpugned order passed by the second respondent and the appellateorder passed by the first respondent cannot be sustained in viewof the fact that extraneous factors have been considered whilepassing the impugned order. It is clear that the petitioner hasnot been given an opportunity to meet those allegations which arefound both in the impugned order of the second respondent, dated29.9.95, and in the reply affidavit filed on behalf of therespondents. However, the charge memo issued against thepetitioner does not contain any such allegations. Thus, it isclear that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to meet theallegations that he had brought in political and other influenceto cancel the order of the transfer given to him. Once it is clearthat the petitioner had not been given an opportunity to meet theallegations made against him, it could be held that the order ofpunishment passed against the petitioner would be unsustainable.Further, the factors which were taken into consideration whilepassing the impugned order, do not find a place in the chargememo issued to the petitioner. In such circumstances, in view ofthe decisions stated above, the impugned order, dated 25.2.94,passed by the second respondent and order passed by the appellateauthority, namely, the first respondent, on 29.9.95, cannot besaid to be valid and sustainable in the eye of law. Hence, theyare quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. Nocosts. CshSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1.The Inspector General of Registration,Santhome High Road,Mylapore, Madras-600 004. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.The District Registrar, Namakkal, Salem District.•1 cc to the Government Pleader, SR No.36227•1 cc to Mr. S. Vadivelu, Advocate SR No. 35750Writ Petition No.27754 of 2006TEJ(CO)SR/7.8.2008