Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(vii).The order of Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chennai, dated 07.01.2016 has been passed after an inordinate delay of more than four years after he submitted his explanation on 05.01.2012 and there is a further delay of seven months in serving the order to him and it was served only on 22.08.2016. On the basis of the report alleged to have been issued by the Collector on 06.08.2015, the copy of the same has not been furnished to him; this is violative of the Principles of natural justice. The unsigned statement said to have been recorded from him by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, cannot be relied upon unless the same is substantiated in a regular enquiry. He has not stated anything before the police and the order has been issued at a time, when the panel for promotion to the post of District Revenue Officer is going to be finalized. The inordinate delay in rendering the final order and in communicating the same has been committed with mala fide intention to deprive him of his empanelment for the post of District Revenue Officer. Since the Disciplinary Proceedings itself was initiated on the basis of directions of the Government, he was under the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis impression that he cannot get justice at the hands of the Government and he had filed the writ petition in W.P.No.36970 of 2016 seeking for quashing the order of punishment and for directions to empanel him in the ensuing panel for promotions as District Revenue Officer and to promote him with retrospective effect from the date of promotion of his immediate junior with consequential benefits and this Court by its order dated 05.12.2016 in W.P.No.36970 of 2016 had directed the petitioner to file an appeal to the Government within two weeks and further, directed the Government to consider the appeal and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law. After the direction, the petitioner had filed an appeal dated 29.12.2016 to the Government and the Government by G.O.(D).No.357, Revenue and Disaster Management Department dated 02.08.2017, rejected the appeal on untenable grounds. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.

4.Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order of punishment has been passed based on the report dated 06.08.2015, which was not furnished to the petitioner. Such reliance on an undisclosed report to impose punishment is violative of the principles of natural justice. Further, he submitted that the petitioner is a Deputy Commissioner (Admn) having rendered 33 years of service and the order of penalty of stoppage of one year increment without cumulative effect confirmed by an appellate authority is untenable and he had not employed any private individual by paying Rs.100/- per day and the reliance of the first respondent on the unsigned statement of the petitioner recorded is also not sustainable. This was a proceeding under Rule 17 (a) of the TNCS (D&A) Rules, there was no enquiry and even assuming the petitioner had made such a statement unless it is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis substantiated in the regular enquiry, it cannot be said that the charge has been substantiated in accordance with the rules in existence. The penalty might be put as an impediment for his empanelment to the promotion as District Revenue Officer and further submitted that the Disciplinary Authority without proper application of mind considering the relevant factors and also Rule 23 (1) of the TNCS (D&A) Rules. This Court while disposing the appeal, the penalty was imposed pertains to the year 2008, that too when the petitioner was holding a post which is the third lower cadre to that of District Revenue Officer, the penalty cannot be put as an impediment against the petitioner at this stage and thus, he prayed to allow the writ petition.