M.Swaminathan v. The Secretary to Government Rural Development E-3 Department Fort St.George, Chenai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 18.12.2009CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMANW.P.NO.48530 OF 2006OA.1420/01M.Swaminathan...Petitioner Vs.The Secretary to GovernmentRural Development E-3 DepartmentFort St.George, Chenai - 9...RespondentPRAYER: This Writ Petition came to be numbered under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India by way of transfer of O.A.No.1420 of2001, to call for the records of the respondent in connection withthe impugned order passed by him in G.O.D.No.631 Rural DevelopmentE-3 Department dated 04.12.2000 and quash the same and grant himsuch other further relief.For Petitioner: Mr.K.VenkatramaniFor Respondent : Mrs.C.K.Vishnu Priya Additional Government Pleader---O R D E R The Original Application in O.A.No.1420 of 2001 beforethe Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal is the present writpetition. 2. The petitioner entered into service in HighwaysDepartment as Junior Engineer on 25.08.1960. The said post wassubsequently re-designated as Assistant Engineer. He was promotedas Assistant Divisional Engineer on 08.11.1988, however, he wasreverted on 14.11.1989 for want of vacancy. He was deputed to RuralDevelopment Department and he was serving as Assistant Engineer.The designation of Assistant Engineer serving in Panchayat Union isUnion Engineer. The petitioner served in Madukkur Panchayat Unionduring 1982-1983 and 1983-1984. During that time, Bio-Gas plantswere erected in the fields/farms/houses of 28 beneficiaries fromthe funds of Panchayat Union. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. The investigation into the erection of 28 Bio-Gasplants led to the issuance of charge memo dated 31.01.1992 by theTribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, First Floor, KuralagamBuildings, Madras –108 against the petitioner and 10 others. Amongthe said 11 accused persons, the petitioner was arrayed as AccusedOfficer No.11. While another Union Engineer, Mr.S.Surilirajan wasarrayed as Accused Officer No.10. The allegation made in the chargememo was that for 28 beneficiaries, 1 to 25 either denied thesupply or erection of Bio-Gas plants in their fields/farms/housesand that the persons mentioned in Sl.Nos.26 to 28 were found to befictitious and non-existent persons.4. During the pendency of the enquiry by the Tribunal forDisciplinary Proceedings, the petitioner was permitted to retirefrom service, by an order of the Government dated 29.06.19945. The Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings gave itsreport dated 18.08.1995 holding that the charges against all theaccused officers were proved. Based on the findings of the enquiry,after consulting the Public Service Commission, the respondentissued a provisional conclusion on punishment in the letter dated30.10.1996 proposing to impose a cut in 1/3rd pension permanently.Ultimately, on considering reply given by the petitioner, therespondent passed the impugned G.O.(D).No.631, Rural Development(E3) Department, dated 04.12.2000 imposing the penalty of cut in1/3rd of pension per month permanently. The petitioner filedO.A.No.1420 of 2001 (W.P.No.48530 of 2006) to quash the impugnedGovernment Order. 6. Heard Mr.K.Venkatramani, learned counsel for thepetitioner and Mrs.C.K.Vishnu Priya, learned Additional GovernmentPleader for the respondent.7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,though raised many grounds, confined his arguments to 'Ground e' ofthe affidavit relating to the discrimination shown by therespondent in the matter of imposing punishment on petitioner.'Ground e' is extracted here under :"e) In the case of V.R.Ganesan A.O.No.7 who hasinvolved in 3 cases of beneficiaries the Governmentimposed a punishment of stoppage of increment for aperiod of one year without cumulative effect in G.O.1 DNo.373 Rural Development (E.III) Department dated14.08.1996. Similarly in the case of Road InspectorS.Kumarasamy A.O.No.8 the Government leniently imposedthe punishment in G.O.1 D.No.372 Rural Development(E.III) dated 14.08.1996. Again in the case of Thiru https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Shaual Hameed RWO A.O.7 was also dealt with leniently.But in the case of the applicant he has been awarded withmajor penalty. Hence there is discrimination whileawarding punishments to the applicant when similarlysituated persons who dealt with leniently. Hence on thisground also the entire punishment is liable to bequashed."8. The reply to 'Ground e' is found in paragraph 16 ofthe counter affidavit, which reads as follows:"16. With reference to paragraph 6(4)(e) on the'ground', of the application it is submitted that thepunishment awarded to the applicant is appropriate to hisposition as a technical officer of the Panchayat Union.The final orders quoted by him are irrelevant as far ashis position is concerned."9. When the matter came up on 16.12.2009, I directed thelearned Additional Government Pleader to furnish the details ofpunishment imposed on the Accused Officer No.10, in view of theparagraph 16 of the reply affidavit. Today, the learned AdditionalGovernment Pleader produced the details of punishment imposed onthe Accused Officers. In view of the categorical stands taken bythe respondents in paragraph 16, I am only concerned with thepunishment imposed on Mr.S.Surilirajan, Accused Officer No.10,Union Engineer in the same Madukkur Panchayat Union, where thepetitioner was also employed. As per the details furnished,Mr.Surilirajan was imposed with the punishment of stoppage ofincrement for one year without cumulative effect. I am not takingin to account the punishment imposed on the three Accused Officersreferred to in the 'Ground e', since, two of those three officerswere Road inspectors and one was Rural Welfare Officer. Hence I donot propose to compare the punishment imposed on them with thepunishment imposed on the petitioner.10. When the respondent imposed the punishment ofstoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect toMr.S.Surilirajan, it is not known why they imposed the cut of1/3rd pension that too permanently to the petitioner. At thisjuncture, it is relevant to refer to the internal page No.45 of thefindings of the Tribunal relating to the involvement of accusedofficers in erecting the Bio-Gas plants. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl.No. InChargeMemoAmount of Subsidy claimed byA.O.1 (Rs.)Accused Officerswho have signed therelevant completioncertificate with whomA.O.1 has connived11940/-5,1021940/-7,1041940/-9,1051940/-8,1061940/-9,1073170/-9,1091940/-2,11101940/-7111940/-7121940/-6151550/-2161940/-2181940/-4201940/-4231940/-2,10241940/-2,10251940/-2,11263170/-2,10271300/-2,10281000/-2,1011. Mr.S.Surilirajan, as Union Engineer has signed 11certificates of erection of 11 Bio-Gas plants, while the petitionersigned only two certificates. Therefore, when Mr.S.Surilirajan wasimposed with the punishment of stoppage of increment for one yearwithout cumulative effect, there is no justification for therespondent to impose cut in 1/3rd pension in the case of petitionerpermanently. Hence the impugned order is discriminatory and isliable to be quashed. 12. While quashing the impugned order, the matter isremanded back to first respondent to pass a fresh order imposingappropriate punishment taking into account, the punishment imposedon Mr.S.Surilirajan, Accused Officer No.10 who was also Union https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Engineer in the same Panchayat Union and who involved in erectionof 11 Bio-Gas plants by issuing 11 false certificates, while thepetitioner involved in 2 certificates. The first respondent isdirected to pass appropriate orders within a period of three monthsfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, theimpugned order is quashed and the Writ Petition is allowed. Nocosts.rnsSd/-Asst. Registrar//True Copy//Sub Asst. RegistrarToThe Secretary to GovernmentRural Development E-3 DepartmentFort St.George, Chenai - 9+ 1 cc to Government Pleader, SR No.70412, 69261W.P.NO.48530 OF 2006RK(CO)SR/30.12.2009