Madras High Court
K.Senthilkumaran vs The Director Of Agriculture on 2 September, 2022
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
W.P.No.33490 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE : 02.09.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.33490 of 2014
K.Senthilkumaran ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Director of Agriculture,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
2.The Additional Director of Agriculture,
(Planning and Administration),
Office of the Director of Agriculture,
Chepauk, Chennai – 5.
3.The Chief Engineer,
(Agricultural Engineering) Department,
Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records connected with
the proceedings issued in Se.Mu.No.O.Na.4/39850/2011 dated 01.10.2015
passed by the 3rd Respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ilamvaludhi
For Respondents : Mr.S.Prabhakaran
Government Advocate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 10
W.P.No.33490 of 2014
ORDER
The order of punishment of stoppage of next increment for one year without cumulative effect dated 01.10.2015 is under challenge in the present writ petition.
2. The petitioner joined as Junior Assistant in the Agricultural Engineering Department. He was promoted as Assistant and thereafter, as Superintendent. The petitioner was placed under suspension on the ground that a Criminal Case was registered against him in Crime No.175 of 2008 on the file of Bagayam Police Station, regarding the allegations of abatement of commission of suicide of his wife. The Criminal Case was taken on file by the Learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Vellore in S.C.No.173/2009 and the petitioner was arrayed as Accused No.1 and the Criminal Case ended with an order of acquittal on 23.11.2009. The petitioner filed a writ petition for issuing posting orders in W.P.No.13275 of 2010 and the High Court directed the respondents to dispose of the representation.
3. On his reinstatement by revoking the order of suspension, the petitioner was surrendered to the Head Office. The petitioner states that his counterpart one Mr.S.Joseph, who was continuing in the same office at https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 10 W.P.No.33490 of 2014 Vellore Region as Superintendent could have been surrendered to the Head Office instead of the writ petitioner. The said Mr.S.Joseph filed a writ petition in W.P.No.14852 of 2010 to consider his representation and that was disposed of by this Court by directing the respondents to consider the same. Another writ petition was filed in W.P.No.25813 of 2010, directing the respondents again to dispose of the representation dated 20.08.2010, which was also disposed of by this Court, directing the respondents to dispose of the same. Subsequently, the posting order was given to writ petitioner in the same office at Vellore. He was allowed to continue till 13.02.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to Thiruvannamali District on 14.02.2011.
4. The respondents issued a charge memo dated 23.09.2011 under Rule 17 (a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and the charges against the writ petitioner reads as under:
“Charge.1: Whereas, for the disobedience of the posting and allotment orders to the Joint Director of Agriculture, Nagapattinam by the Director of Agriculture, Chennai and Joint Director of Agriculture, Nagapattinam respectively. Charge.2: Whereas, though he has been served with posting orders in time, he has filed W.P.No.13275 of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 10 W.P.No.33490 of 2014 2010 before the Hon'ble Court with false statements that no posting orders was issued to him. Charge.3: Whereas, though after the receipt of posting and allotment orders from the higher officials, without joining the duty in the new station, has applied for compulsory wait for the non-joining period 22.12.2009 to 28.07.2010 which is in violation to the Fundamental Rule 9(6) and ruling 3.
Charge.4: Without, either joining duty or submitting any leave letters, he has absented form duty for the period of 7 months from 22.12.2009 to 28.07.2010 and thus violated the rule 29(1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules.
Charge.5: Whereas, though after the receipt of posting orders to the new station, without joining duty for the period of 7 months and requesting compulsory wait for the said period, he has tested the administrative efficiency of the senior officers and tried to cause financial loss to the Government in the way of seeking compulsory wait.”
5. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the charges. Considering the explanation, the respondents passed a final order in departmental disciplinary proceedings in order dated 04.10.2012, imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Director of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 10 W.P.No.33490 of 2014 Agriculture, Chennai, on 15.11.2012 and the appeal was rejected by the 1st respondent by an order dated 22.06.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner filed writ petition in W.P.No.26296 of 2015, seeking a direction to the respondents to dispose of the representation dated 17.07.2015. The High Court directed the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the representation and pass orders. Accordingly, the order impugned has been passed in proceedings dated 01.10.2015, imposing the penalty of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect and the said order is under challenge in the present writ petition.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the charges are vague and not connected with any of the misconduct or dereliction of duty or otherwise under the rules in force. Thus, the charge per se is unsustainable and on that ground, the order of punishment is to be set aside. In the Court proceedings the petitioner has not suppressed any of the fact nor made any false statements in the affidavit. Thus, the very charges framed against the writ petitioner under rule 17 (a) is untenable and consequently, the punishment is to be set aside. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5 of 10 W.P.No.33490 of 2014
7. The respondents filed a counter affidavit, stating that the misconduct of the writ petitioner on account of his own act resulted in framing of charges under Rule 17 (a) for the purpose of imposing minor penalty under the Discipline and Appeal Rules. The first charge is that the petitioner has committed an act of disobedience of the posting and the allotment orders. Further, he was issued with a posting order in time and he filed a writ petition with false statement that, no posting order was issued to him. On receipt of posting order, the petitioner had not joined the duty in the new station and applied for the compulsory wait for the non- joining period, which is in violation of the Fundamental Rules 9 (6) and Ruling 3. He was absented himself for duty for a period of 7 months from 22.12.2009 to 28.07.2010 and violated Rule 29(1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules.
8. Beyond charges one and two, charge No.4 against the writ petitioner was that without either joining duty or submitting any leave letters, the petitioner absented from duty for a period of 7 months from 22.12.2009 to 28.07.2010 and violated Rule 29(1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules. No doubt, the charges one and two are not clear. However, charges three and four are certainly relating to the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 6 of 10 W.P.No.33490 of 2014 conduct of the Government Servants. In this regard, the authorities have considered the explanations submitted by the writ petitioner elaborately and passed a speaking order, holding that the charges are held proved.
9. Pertinently, the respondents imposed a minor penalty of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect. The procedures as contemplated under Rule 17 (a) of the Discipline and Appeal Rules were followed and there is no infirmity as such. In view of the fact that the allegations in charges one and two, if at all not taken into consideration with reference to the other charges, this Court is of an opinion that the minor penalty imposed on the writ petitioner cannot be construed as disproportionate or otherwise. The explanations submitted by the petitioners were elaborately considered by the respondents including facts and circumstances pleaded. Thus, there is no infirmity.
10. The power of judicial review of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to ensure the processes, through which, the decision is taken by the competent authorities in consonance with the Statute and rules in force, but not the decision itself. In disciplinary matters, the power of review of the High Court is to ensure that the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 7 of 10 W.P.No.33490 of 2014 procedures as contemplated under the Discipline and Appeal Rules are violated by the competent authorities. In the present case, there is no infirmity in the matter of adhering to the procedures as contemplated. The charges are framed only for minor misconduct and finally, the minor penalty of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect was imposed. Thus, the punishment cannot be construed as disproportionate to the gravity of the charges proved against the writ petitioner.
11. Thus, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned and consequently, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
02.09.2022 Jeni Index : Yes Speaking order : Yes https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 8 of 10 W.P.No.33490 of 2014 To
1.The Director of Agriculture, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
2.The Additional Director of Agriculture, (Planning and Administration), Office of the Director of Agriculture, Chepauk, Chennai – 5.
3.The Chief Engineer, (Agricultural Engineering) Department, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 9 of 10 W.P.No.33490 of 2014 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Jeni W.P.No.33490 of 2014 02.09.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 10 of 10