Senthurpandian vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 18 January, 2010

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Senthurpandian vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 18 January, 2010

2.In both the writ petitions, the petitioner is one and the same and in W.P.(MD)No.4358 of 2009, he challenged the issuance of charge memo against him and in W.P.(MD)No.4355 of 2009, he sought direction of this court to promote him to the post of Block Development Officer, as per the panel drawn by the 2nd respondent for the year 2009-2010.

3.The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant on 25.03.1985 and promoted as Assistant and thereafter as Extension Officer and finally, working as Deputy Block Development Officer on 01.07.2006 at Kalakad Panchayat Union. On 14.07.2008, he was transferred to Kamuthi Panchayat Union and working there as Deputy Block Development Officer. As per the confirmed seniority list, in the cadre of Deputy Block Development Officer, the petitioner was selected and included in the panel of Block Development Officers for the year 2009-2010, by taking into consideration the crucial date on 01.03.2009. By the proceedings of the 2nd respondent, dated 23.03.2009, the petitioner was placed as Serial No.2 in the seniority list and No.1 is G.Vasanthi, who was already promoted as Block Development Officer(BP), Ramanathapuram and finally entitled to be promoted to the post of Block Development Officer. There was also a vacancy at Nandikovil and due to the elections, promotion was not given to him.

4.While so, it is alleged by the petitioner that with the intention of not giving promotion to the petitioner, a charge memo, dated 20.04.2009 was served on the petitioner on 29.04.2009, by the 2nd respondent, by his proceedings in Roc No.V2/61728/2006, dated .04.2009 and three charges were framed against him and they are as follows:

Charge No.1: In the year 2003-2004, Government funds were allotted for upgradation of 5 Adi Dravida hut houses under IAY(Upgradation) Scheme at Kakkudi Panchayat, Kamuthi Union at Ramanathapuram District. He sanctioned for upgradation of 5 hut houses at Kakkudi Panchyat Union. The following 5 beneficiaries were in eligible persons, because, they have own houses in their own name and also possess landed property. That he failed to verify genuineness of the beneficiaries property.

1.Kakkudi- Ramakrishnan, S/o.Kesan

2.Kakudi- Ganasekaran, S/o.Kesan

3.Kakkudi- Marimuthu, S/o.Kesan

4.Kakkudi- Sathiya, S/o.Muthu

5.Kakkudi- Vellai, S/o.Solai Charge No.2: In this scheme, Government allotted Rs.50,000/-. This amount was not allotted to the eligible beneficiaries. That he failed to implement the Government scheme property.

Charge No.3: That he failed in maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and thus violated Rule 20(1) of TNGS Conduct Rule 1973.

5.The petitioner has stated that under the guise of pending charges, which were issued under Rules 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, his promotion was overlooked and the 2nd respondent is trying to promote his juniors. According to the petitioner, promotion to the post of Block Development Officer was due on 01.03.2009 and as on 01.03.2009, there was no charge pending against him and hence, his promotion cannot be withheld under the guise of of pending charges.

6.Further, there is no basis for the charges and in respect of certain happenings that had taken place in the year 2003, these charges were framed in the year 2009 only with the intention of not giving promotion to the higher post.

7.It is further submitted that as per the charge, under IAY Upgradation Scheme, funds were allotted to various village panchayats, in which 5 hut houses for 5 members belonging to the Adi Dravidar were to be allotted and when the petitioner was working as Extension Officer in Kakkudi Panchayat, on the basis of the recommendation of the President of the said Panchayat and on the basis of the resolution passed in the said Panchayat, dated 14.08.2003, 5 beneficiaries were selected and as the Extension Officer of the Adi Diravidar Department of the Kamuthi Panchayat Union, the petitioner forwarded the resolution to the Block Development Officer, after verifying that the beneficiaries are belonging to the Adi Diravidar community. As per the Administrative Sanction, dated 20.05.2003, the Block Development Officer, has to verify whether the beneficiaries are eligible for the above scheme and the Block Development Officer, after verification that the beneficiaries belongs to the Adi Diravida community, sanctioned the work order. As per the IAY Upgradation scheme, funds were allotted to each house for Rs.10,000/- and the sanction of work order was issued by the Block Development Officer and the scheme was implemented in the year 2003 and after a lapse of 5-1/2 years, the charge memo has been issued as if the petitioner failed to verify whether the beneficiaries are eligible to claim that amount and according to the charge memo, the beneficiaries were already having pucca houses and possesses landed properties and they are ineligible to get the benefit under the scheme and the petitioner without verifying these particulars, forwarded the recommendation of the said Panchayat Union to the Block Development Officer and therefore, was instrumental in giving benefits to the in eligible persons.

8.It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that it is not his duty to verify those details and the resolution was passed by the Panchayat, recommending the names of the beneficiaries and his duty was only to forward the same to the Block Development Officer, who was expected to verify all those particulars and therefore, he cannot be held responsible for that. Therefore, he prayed for quashing of the charge memo and also filed another writ petition, for giving him promotion to the post of Block Development Officer.

9.The respondent filed counter stating that the charges were framed under 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal)Rules and as per the Government Letter 18824/S/2005-2, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, dated 07.10.2005, certain clarifications were issued and as per the clarifications, when charges were framed under 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, any of the punishment awarded after the crucial date and before the actual promotion, it should be held against the officer and inclusion deferred until finalisation of charges. Therefore, there is no mala-fide in withholding the promotion on the petitioner and before the issuance of promotion, charge memo has been issued against the petitioner and hence, he cannot be considered for promotion during the pendency of the charges.

10.It is further stated by the respondent that though the President of the village Panchayat selected the beneficiaries and the Panchayat also passed a resolution to that effect, the petitioner in his capacity as Extension Officer (ADW), should have verified the genuineness of the beneficiaries as to whether they are entitled to avail the benefits before recommending their names and all the persons were having houses and lands and had the petitioner verified those particulars, he would not have recommended their names and but for the recommendation of the petitioner, the Block Development Officer would not have approved the list and would not have issued the work order. It is further stated that the petitioner failed in his duty and therefore, disciplinary action was taken against him.

11.It is further submitted that though the President and the Block Development Officer were the competent authority, the note of the petitioner in the selection of beneficiaries was vital and the petitioner without making the verification, recommended the beneficiaries and a sum of Rs.50,000/- was spent on ineligible persons.

12.It is further submitted that during the pendency of 17(b) charges, and when an enquiry is contemplated, he will not be considered for promotion. Regarding the delay in laying the charge sheet, it was stated in the counter filed in W.P.(MD)No.4358 of 2009 that there was no delay and the reason for the delay is explained in para 11 of the counter. It is, therefore, contended by the respondent that there is no delay and the charges framed on the basis of the details available and the petitioner was responsible for all the misconduct.

13.Having regard to the allegations and counter allegations made by the parties. The following issues arose for determination.

1.Whether there was delay in issuing the charge memo and if so, can the charge be quashed on that ground?

2.Whether the petitioner can be held responsible for selecting the beneficiaries and 17(b) charges can be issued for his misconduct?

3.Whether the charge memo issued against the petitioner is liable to be quashed?

4.Whether the petitioner can be considered for promotion, despite the issuance of charge memo?

14.Issue No.1: it is mainly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mrs.J.Nisha Banu, that the charge memo is liable to be quashed on the ground of delay. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, even according to the charge memo, the misconduct had taken place in the year 2003 and after a lapse of 5-1/2 years, the charge memo has been issued and hence, it is liable to be quashed on that ground. In support of her contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the judgment reported in 2000(4)CTC 517, in the case of C.P.Harish vs. The Central Warehousing Corporation, represented by its Managing Director, 4/1, Siri Institutional Area, Hauz Khas, New Delhi 110 016, 2005(5) CTC 380, in the case of A.Obaidhullah vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9 and another, 2006(2) CTC 635, in the case of M.Elangovan vs. The Trichy District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd., rep. by its General Manager, No.1 Fort Station Road, Tiruchirapalli 620 002 and another, (2006)5 SCC 88, in the case of M.V.Bijlani vs. Union of India and others and 2006(1) CTC 476 in the case of Parameswaran vs. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Rural Development Department,Fort St. George, Chennai-9 & others.

15.Referring to the above judgments, Mrs.J.Nisha Banu, contended that in this case, there is no explanation for the charge memo after a lapse of 5-1/2 years and therefore, following the above judgments, the charges are liable to be quashed.

16.On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader, Mr.K.Balasubramanian, submitted that there is no delay in issuing the charge memo and the reason for issuing the charge memo after a period of 5-/12 years has been explained in the counter filed in W.P.(MD)No.4358 in para 11 and hence, there is no delay and that cannot be a reason for quashing the charge memo. In support of his contention, the learned Additional Government Pleader, relied upon the judgment reported in 1995(3) SCC 134, in the case of Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Faizabad vs. Sachindra Nath Pandey and others, 2007 AIR SCW 1639, in the case of Government of A.P & ors vs. V.Appala Swamy and also unreported judgment in W.P.(MD)Nos.1079 to 1085, dated 08.10.2007 by Justice Mr.K.Chandru.

17.Therefore, I have to find out whether there was a delay in issuing the charge memo. As rightly submitted by the learned Additional Government Pleader, in para 11 of the counter affidavit filed W.P.(MD)No.4358 of 2009, it has been clearly explained the reason for issuing the charge memo after a lapse of 5-1/2 years.

18.In para 11 of the said counter filed in W.P.(MD)No.4358 of 2009, it has been stated as follows: Regarding the averments under grounds from (a) to (i), it is submitted that the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption had conducted preliminary enquiry into the allegation for the selection of non eligible persons as beneficiaries under IAY Scheme to Kakkudi Pt. Union, Ramamathapuram District and submitted report to the Appropriate Investigating Authority of the Government on 25.07.2005. Based on the report, concurrence was given to the officials of Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption for taking up detailed enquiry on 01.08.2005. They have conducted a detailed enquiry into the above said allegation by enquiring 31 persons as witnesses and verified 22 documents relating to this allegation. After the enquiry, they concluded that the allegation are substantiated and the same was brought to the notice of the Appropriate investigating Authority of the Government on 16.09.2008 recommending to take departmental disciplinary action against the petitioner and others. The same was received by the Government in Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department on 30.09.2008. After examination of the report of the Appropriate Investigating Authority, the Government in consultation with the advisory department a remittal order was issued vide G.O.(2D) No.86, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj(E2) Department, dated 08.12.2008 directing the Commissioner of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj and the Collector of Ramnad District to initiate departmental disciplinary action under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal)Rules. As such charges were framed against the petitioner vide Collector's charge memo Roc No.V2/61728/2006, dated 20.04.2009. Hence, delay in issuing charge memo to the petitioner is not wanton one and there is no violation of rule in framing of charges against the petitioner.

19.According to me, there is no delay in issuing the charge memo and even there is a delay that has been properly explained. Further in all the cases relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the Courts considered the delay as vital, having regard to the facts of those particular cases.

20.In the reported judgment 2000(4) CTC 517, charge memos were issued after a lapse of 12 years and there was no explanation for the delay in initiating the departmental proceedings. Therefore, this court has held that unwarranted delay constitute denial of reasonable opportunity to defend himself and violates principles of natural justice and on that ground the charge memos were quashed. But in this case, the delay has been properly explained by the respondents and therefore, that judgment will not be applicable to the facts of the case.

21.Further, in the judgment reported in 2005(5) CTC 380, the facts are different. Initially, a charge memo was issued earlier and suppressing that, 2nd charge memo was issued after a lapse of 12 years and in that context, it was held that the delay of 12 years is vital and the charge memo issued after a lapse of 12 years cannot be sustained. The judgment reported in 2006(1)CTC 476, in the case of Parameswaran vs. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Rural Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9 & others, the first charge memo was issued in the year 1985 and the second charge memo was issued in the year 1987 and the 3rd memo was issued in 1993 on the same incident and therefore, it was held that charge memo is liable to be quashed, following the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the matter of Mahadevan, P.V. v. M.D., Tamil Nadu Housing Board, 2005 (4) CTC 403.

22.In the judgment reported in 2006(5) SCC 88, in the case of M.V.Bijlani vs. Union of India and others, there was a delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings after a lapse of six years and thereafter, it was continued for seven years and in that context, it was quashed. In the case reported in 2006(2)CTC 635, in the case of M.Elangovan vs. The Trichy District Central Co-op Bank Ltd., rep by its General Manager, No.1, Fort Station Rorad, Tiruchirapalli 620 002 and another, the occurrence has taken place in the year 1996 and charges were framed in the year 2003 and in respect of another occurrence that taken place in the year 2001, second show cause notice was issued in the year 2004 and even after issuance of second show cause notice, there was inordinate delay in completing disciplinary proceedings and that was taken into consideration by this court and based on the charge of P.V.Mahadevan case, the charge was also quashed. Therefore, if one could see the various judgments referred to above, except the judgment 2000(4) CTC 517, in all other cases, proceedings were initiated long back and they were kept pending for many years and after a lapse of 7 years or 9 years, actions were taken and in that context, this court held that the delay in completing the proceedings would seriously prejudice the delinquent employee and it is vital if there is no explanation for inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo, after initiation of proceedings. In other words, in my opinion, if the initiation of proceedings, is followed either by placing the delinquent employee on suspension or by issuance of charge memo and without taking further action, the employee was kept under threat of action for many years and after a lapse of 6 or 7 years, action is taken either by issuing a charge memo or by ordering enquiry and in those cases the proceedings were quashed by this court on the ground that a person should not be kept under threat of action for many years and sword should not be allowed to hang over the head of a person for many years, keeping such person under threat that he may be axed at any time and on that ground, this court has quashed the charge memo. Further it has been held in the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court, relied upon by the learned Additional Government Pleader that the delay of 16 years is not a sufficient ground to close the matter and when the department alone was not responsible for the delay, the delay cannot be a ground for quashing the proceedings.

23.Further, in the unreported judgment delivered by Justice Mr.K.Chandru, in W.P.(MD)Nos.1039 to 1085 of 2008 quoting various judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court, the learned Judge has held that the delay cannot be the reason for quashing the charge memo. Further as stated supra, the delay has been properly explained by the respondents and therefore, according to me, the delay cannot be held against the respondents, justifying the interference and charge memo cannot be quashed on that ground.

24.Hence, Issue No.1 is answered against the petitioner.

25.Issue No.2: It is seen from the charge memo that in the year 2003- 2004, Government funds were allotted for upgradation of 5 Adi Dravida hut houses under IAY (Upgradation) Scheme at Kakkudi Panchayat, Kamuthi Union at Ramanathapuram District, and the petitioner sanctioned for upgradation of 5 hut houses and recommended 5 beneficiaries, who were found to be in eligible as they have own houses in their own name and also possesses landed property and the petitioner failed to verify genuineness of the beneficiaries property.

26.In the second charge, the Government allotted Rs.50,000/- for those five persons and the amount was not allotted to eligible beneficiaries and the petitioner failed to implement the Government scheme property. This was explained by the petitioner stating that the President of the Panchayat, selected 5 beneficiaries and the Panchayat also passed a resolution recommending the names of 5 beneficiaries and the petitioner only forwarded the names to the Block Development Officer and as per the Administration Sanction, dated 20.05.2003, the Block Development Officer has to verify the genuineness of the allottees whether they are eligible or not and therefore, he cannot be blamed for that.

27.It is seen from the letter of the Ramanathapuram District Collector in Na.Ka.R3/1738/2003, dated 20.05.2003 that after getting recommendation from the Panchayat, the Block Development Officer has to inspect and enquire whether the beneficiaries are eligible to claim that benefits and guidelines were also given for selecting the beneficiaries. As per the letter of the Collector, the responsibility was fixed on the Block Development Officer and it has been specifically stated that he was responsible for selecting the beneficiaries. Therefore, it was contended by Mrs.J.Nish Banu that the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the same.

28.On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader, contended that though the President has selected the allottees, it is the duty of the petitioner,who was working as Extension Officer at that time to verify the eligibility of those persons, by conducting enquiry whether they come under the criteria fixed by the scheme and but for his recommendation, the Block development Officer would not have approved those beneficiaries and therefore, the recommendation made by the petitioner is vital and hence, he is responsible. Therefore, we will have to see whether the petitioner is responsible for the same.

29.As stated supra, in the charge memo, it was only stated that the petitioner sanctioned for upgradation of 5 hut houses and the petitioner failed to very the genuineness of the beneficiaries properly. It is also admitted by the respondent that the petitioner did not select the beneficiaries and the beneficiaries were selected by the President of the Panchayat and approved by the Panchayat, by passing a resolution and the petitioner only failed to verify the genuineness of the beneficiaries whether they own houses or landed properties and whether they are eligible to claim any benefit under the scheme. Therefore, even according to the charge memo, the petitioner failed to supervise or verify the eligibility of the beneficiaries.

30.According to the letter of the Ramanathapuram District Collector, dated 20.05.2003, the Block Development Officer, is responsible for selecting the beneficiaries and he has to enquire about the eligibility of the persons, who are entitled to claim benefit under that scheme. Therefore, a reading of the letter of Ramanathapuram District Collector, dated 20.05.2003, and the explanation given by the petitioner in the writ petition affidavit, would prove that the duty of the Block Development Officer is to verify the beneficiaries identified by the Panchyat President and no duty is cast upon the petitioner, who was working as Extension Officer at that time. Therefore, in my opinion, it cannot be stated that the petitioner has selected five in eligible persons, for claiming benefit under that scheme. Coming to the 2nd aspect of the Issue No.2 viz., whether the 17(b) charge can be levelled against the petitioner and according to me 17(b)charges cannot be levelled against the petitioner.

31.To appreciate the same, we will have to see, Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, where in penalties were provided for various misconduct and as per the said Rule items mentioned in 4,6,8 are deemed to be major penalties and they are as follows:

"(iv)Reduction to a lower rank in the seniority list or to a lower post not being lower than that to which he was directly recruited, whether in the same service or in another service,State or Subordinate or to a lower time-scale not being lower than that to which he was directly recruited, or to a lower stage in a time scale.

(vi)Compulsory retirement.

((vii) Dismissal from the Civil Service of the State Government."

32.Having regard to the misconduct alleged against the petitioner can it be stated that the misconduct even if proved would attract the major penalties is the next question. In this connection, it is pertinent to refer to the unreported judgment of the Division Bench of this court made in W.P.(MD)No.6809 of 2004, dated 17.06.2004. In that judgment, the circumstance under which the charge memo, under 17(b) can be framed as per the instructions issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu was quoted and further held unless a major punishment is really warranted, namely dismissal from service, removal from service, compulsory retirement or reduction to a lower rank in the seniority list or to a lower post or time scale, framing of charges under Rule 17(b) is not necessary and should be avoided. The instructions were quoted as follows: "Without prejudice to the generality of situations involving indiscipline, moral turpitude, corruption, etc., Charges under Rule 17(b) has to be framed in the following types of cases for imposing any one of the major penalties"-

1.Cases in which there is reasonable ground to believe that a particular offence has been committed by a Government Servant but the evidence forthcoming is not sufficient for prosecution in a Court of Law, e.g., [a]Possession of assets disproportionate to the known source of income;

[b]Obtaining or attempting to obtain illegal gratification;

[c]Misappropriation of Government property, money or shares; [d]Obtaining or attempting to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without consideration, which is not adequate, etc.

2.Falsification of Government Records.

3.Irregularity or negligence in the discharge of official duties with a dishonest motive.

4.Misuse of official position for personal gain.

5.Disclosure of secret or confidential information even though it does not fall strictly within the scope of the official secrets act.

6.Misappropriation of Government Funds, false claims of travelling allowance reimbursement of false medical bills etc.,"

Thereafter, the learned Judge observed in para 12 "In the present case, we have already quoted the charge memo wherein the negligence in discharging of official duty is alleged. Nothing has been whispered as to any dis-honest motive on the part of the present first respondent. The only allegation is that he had not exercised control and effectively supervised the duties and acts of the Assistant Commissioner. there is no allegation in the charge memo that there was any dis-honest motive on the part of the first respondent. similarly, there is no allegation that there has been any misuse of official position for personal gain. It is also not disputed that the other aspects indicated in the guidelines are not attracted. Therefore, in the absence of the specific allegation that alleged negligence in discharge of official duty was with dishonest motive or in the absence of any allegation that there was misuse of official position for personal again the charge memo should not have been farmed under Rule 17(b) of the Rules. The aforesaid guidelines has also makes it clear that unless major punishment is really warranted namely dismissal from service, removal from service, compulsory retirement or reduction to a lower rank in the seniority list or to a lower post or time scale, the charge memo should not be under Rule 17(b) of the Rules.

33.In this case also, the gist of the charge memo is failure to verify the eligible criteria of the beneficiaries and nothing has been whispered as to any dishonest motive on the part of the petitioner and there is no allegation that there has been any misuse of his official position for personal gain. Therefore, following the above judgment, in my opinion, in the absence of specific allegations that the alleged negligence in discharging his official duty was with dishonest motive or in the absence of any allegation that there was misuse of official position for personal gain 17(b) charges cannot be framed against the petitioner. Therefore, the respondents should not have framed charges under section 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, having regard to the nature of the charges levelled against the petitioner. This Issue is, therefore, answered in favour of the petitioner.

34.Issue No.3 and 4: Having regard to the answer given to Issue No.2, I am of the opinion that charge 17(b) cannot be framed against the petitioner. Further this issue can be answered from another angle. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Mrs.J.Nish Banu that even according to the case of the respondent along with the petitioner, the Block Development Officer was also equally responsible and no action has been taken against the Block Development Officer and the petitioner was singled out. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as per the letter of the District Collector, Ramanathapuram, dated 20.05.2003, the duty is cast upon the Block Development Officer to select the beneficiaries and no role has been assigned to the Extension Officer and hence, without taking action against the Block Development Officer, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for that.

35.Mr.K.Balasubramanian, the learned Additional Government Pleader, also replied that action has also been taken against the Block Development Officer and he also submitted that by G.O.(2D) No.86 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (E2) Department, dated 08.12.2008, appropriate Investigating Authority of Government has conducted an investigation into the allegation of selection of non-eligible persons as beneficiaries in the IAY Scheme to Kakkudi Panchayt, Kamuthi Panchayat Union, Ramanathapuram District and the authority held that these allegations were substantiated against the Accused Officers viz., Tr.P.Murugan, B.D.O.(Pt) and the petitioner and others.

36.It is further stated the authority has recommended for initiation of departmental disciplinary action against the Accused Officers and 5 persons and one among them is P.Murugan, B.D.O, who sanctioned the payment and approved the eligible candidates and the petitioner is also one among five persons.

Therefore, the learned Additional Government Pleader, submitted that action has been initiated against the Block Development Officer, P.Murugan and hence, it cannot be contended that action has been taken only against the petitioner. If action has been taken against the Block Development Officer, as now claimed by the learned Additional Government Pleader, then the charges cannot be initiated against the petitioner alone and it is hit by Rule 9(A) of the TNCS (D& A) Rules.

37.Rule 9-A reads as follows: "In any case where more than one Government Servant of the same Department are involved, the authority competent to institute disciplinary proceedings and impose any of the penalties specified in rule 8 shall be the authority in that Department in respect of the Government servant who holds the highest post and the disciplinary proceedings against all of them shall be taken together."

38.As per said Rule, when more then one Government Servant were involved, the authority competent to institute disciplinary proceedings and impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 8 shall be the authority in that Department in respect of the Government servant, who holds the higher post and the disciplinary proceedings against all of them shall be taken together.

39.In this case, the Block Development Officer, is the higher authority and the Collector is the authority, who can take action against the Block Development Officer and therefore, in this case, the charges were levelled against the petitioner by the Collector and therefore, the first part of the Rule 9A has been complied with. But under Rule 9A, disciplinary proceedings against all of them shall be taken together. In this case, it is not the case of the respondents that action has been taken against the Block Development Officer along with the petitioner. As a matter of fact, no material has been placed before this court to that effect and no action has been taken against the Block Development Officer. Even assuming that action is going to be taken against the Block Development Officer, it is proved that action was not taken together against the petitioner and the Block Development Officer and along with the petitioner, no action has been taken against the Block Development Officer. Hence, there is violation of Rule 9A on that ground also the charges levelled to be quashed. Hence, this issue is answered in favour of the petitioner.

40.I have already held that 17 (b) charges should not have been levelled against the petitioner, having regard to the nature of the misconduct and therefore, only 17(a) charges should have been initiated and in that case, the pendency of charges will not stand in the way of granting promotion to the petitioner. I have further held while answering Issue No.3 that the charges framed against the petitioner are liable to be quashed. Hence, in the absence of any charges, the petitioner is entitled to be promoted to the post of Block Development Officer and he ought to have been promoted to the post of Block Development Officer, Therefore, both writ petitions are allowed and the charges levelled against the petitioner is quashed and the respondents are directed to promote the petitioner as per the panel prepared. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.

er To,

1.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Dept., Chennai-600 009.

2.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.

3.The Additional Government Pleader, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madras High Court