The Court directed SIPCOT to promote the petitioner as Assistant General Manager retrospectively from 2013 post-charge quashing, and to recommend him for Deputy General Manager from 2016 for retirement benefits.
Direct promotion as Assistant General Manager with effect from 06.05.2013 and recommendation for Deputy General Manager with effect from 19.02.2016.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.06.2016
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN
WP.No.13779/2016 and W.M.P.No. 12090 of 2016
E.Bathiah Manager SIPCOT Limited Egmore Chennai-600 008. ..Petitioner Vs
The Chairman & Managing Director State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited (SIPCOT Limited) 19-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road Egmore Chennai-600 008. ..Respondent
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent to promote the petitioner forthwith within a time frame to the post of Assistant General Manager, SIPCOT, with effect from 06.05.2013 and thereafter to the post of Deputy General Manager, SIPCOT, with effect from 19.02.2016, being the dates on which promotion to the said posts were given to his immediate junior Sri.S.P.Meyyappan in view of the punishment imposed on the petitioner being set aside by this Court in W.P.No.22143 of 2015, dated 11.03.2016, with all monetary benefits and arrears of salary and other attendant benefits and pass such further orders as this Court may deem fit and necessary.
For Respondent : Mrs.Sudharshana Sunder
This Writ Petition has been filed for a mandamus, to direct the respondent to promote the petitioner forthwith to the post of Assistant General Manager, SIPCOT, with effect from
06.05.2013 and thereafter, to the post of Deputy General Manager, SIPCOT, with effect from 19.02.2016, being the dates on which promotion to the said posts were given to his immediate junior S.P.Meyyappan, in view of the punishment imposed on the petitioner being set aside by this Court in W.P.No.22143 of 2015, dated 11.03.2016, with all monetary benefits and arrears of salary and other attendant benefits.
(2.1) According to the petitioner, he joined the post of Assistant Manager in the State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamilnadu Limited (SIPCOT), on 01.07.1988; promoted as Deputy Manager on 07.07.1995; and thereafter, promoted as Manager, SIPCOT, on 10.01.2008, and continued to serve as Manager till date for the past eight years. According to the petitioner, he is eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant General Manager in May, 2010. At that point of time, there were two vacancies to the post of Assistant General Manger and he was second in the seniority list of Managers. While so, he was issued with a charge memo, dated 31.10.2011, alleging he did not get the stay granted in W.P.No.16409 of 2008, vacated, thereby, he has committed lapse and violated Rule 20 of the Tamilnadu Government Servants Conduct Rules. Therefore, by order dated 09.06.2015, the Chairman and Managing Director, SIPCOT, had imposed the penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect for six months. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner had filed W.P.No. 22143 of 2015, to quash the said proceedings of granting punishment; that Writ Petition was allowed, on 11.03.2016.
(2.2) According to the petitioner, only in view of the currency of the punishment, he could not be promoted to the post of Assistant General Manager, and thereafter, to the post of Deputy General Manager. In the mean while, his junior S.P.Meyyappan was promoted as Assistant General Manager, on 06.05.2013, and thereafter, as Deputy General Manager, on 19.02.2016. According to the petitioner, the enquiry proceedings were delayed, in order to delay the promotion to him. As the punishment has been set aside, there is no legal impediment to promote him as Assistant General Manager and thereafter, as Deputy General Manager and place him above to his immediate junior S.P.Meyyappan. Therefore, he sent a legal notice dated 17.03.2016, along with a copy of the order of this Court in W.P.No. 22143 of 2015, dated 11.03.2016, whereby, the punishment imposed on the petitioner was set aside. But, it has not been considered. Subsequently, his immediate junior has been promoted as Deputy General Manager. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.
minimum service qualification and his junior S.P.Meyyappan was promoted as Assistant General Manager, vide proceedings dated 06.05.2013. He has further averred that the respondent does not discriminate any employee either in the name of caste or religion. He was not second in the seniority for promotion to the post of Assistant General Manager. He was number '4' and his junior S.P.Meyyappan was No.5 and that only due to pendency of the charges, the petitioner was not considered for promotion. The disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner, because, he did not follow up action for vacating the stay granted. Therefore, he would contend that the petitioner cannot be promoted, even otherwise, he was not considered for relaxation during the relevant point of time, only because of the charges were pending. Hence, his junior S.P.Meyyappan was considered and he was promoted.
been categorically stated by this Court as follows:-
“9. It has been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that even now, the writ petition is yet to be disposed of. If that is the case, this Court is at last to understand that writ petitioner alone cannot be made responsible for the continued delay. The substantial charge against the petitioner starts from the date – 17.03.2009 on which the case was not taken care of. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the inability of the Registry. Though the Writ Petition was directed to be posted for final hearing, the same was not posted during the second week of June, 2009, the same has not been disposed of till now. The only progress appears to be that the case has been put up in the list.
“8. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner is due to retire on 30.06.2016 on attaining the age of
superannuation. Therefore, he prayed that his terminal benefits be paid without any delay.
“(iv) Consideration of persons against whom enquiries are pending and specific charges have been framed or charge sheet has been filed in criminal cases - (1) As per orders in the Government Order sixth read above, in the case of pending enquiries
including Vigilance enquiries and in cases where specific charges have not been framed promotions and appointments shall be considered on the basis of the performance of the officers coming under the Zone of selection as on the date of consideration for promotion/appointment as revealed through the personal Files/Record sheets and the seriousness of the punishments, if any previously imposed. In cases where specific charges have been framed or charge sheet has been filed in criminal case, promotion/appointment of which persons shall be deferred till the proceedings are concluded. They must however, be considered for promotion, if they are exonerated or acquitted from the charges. If found suitable with reference to all relevant criteria they shall then be given the promotion with retrospective effect from the date on which their juniors were promoted.”
(emphasis supplied)
Thus, from a reading of the above Government Order, it is crystal clear that when the charges have been quashed or cancelled, then, the person concerned will be given promotion with retrospective effect from the date on which his junior was promoted. Therefore, now that the charges against the petitioner having been quashed by this Court and confirmed by the Division Bench, automatically, the petitioner can be considered for promotion at the relevant point of time, on which his junior was promoted.
disciplinary proceedings, are exonerated from the charges, they will be reverted, from the junior most, to the post of Manager. Therefore also, the petitioner is entitled to be automatically promoted to the post of Assistant General Manager. As far as his junior S.P.Meyyappan is concerned, the promotion was given pursuant to the exemption granted by the Government. But, as rightly pointed out, in 2013 itself, if there was no disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner would have been considered for promotion. In view of the Rules pertaining to the promotion is very clear that there should not be any charges pending against the person concerned at the time of promotion, the petitioner was not considered for promotion at the relevant point of time. But, at the moment, the petitioner is exonerated from the charges, the SIPCOT Management ought to have taken steps to give promotion to the petitioner. Atleast, after the order was initially passed by this Court in W.P.No.22143 of 2015, dated 11.03.2016, the SIPCOT Management ought to have sought for exemption from the Government to give promotion to the petitioner as Assistant General Manager initially and thereafter, as Deputy General Manager, but, the respondent has not done so. Since, the petitioner is now going to retire on 30.06.2016, definitely, there can be a mandamus to the limited extent that the petitioner shall be immediately promoted as Assistant General Manager, for which, there is no need for any approval, as he has already completed eight years of service in the post of Manager. Further, it was already made clear in the proceedings of the respondent, dated 19.02.2016, which is in respect of the promotion given to his junior to the post of Assistant General Manager, that if their seniors, who are now facing disciplinary proceedings, are exonerated from the charges, they will be reverted, from the junior most, to the post of Manager. As far as the promotion to the post of Deputy General Manager is concerned, since his junior has been promoted with effect from 19.02.2016, based on the exemption given by the Government, the same benefit shall also be extended to the petitioner, as otherwise, the petitioner would have been considered for promotion at the relevant of point, but, he was not given promotion only due to the pendency of the charges, which has now been quashed by this Court and confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court.
Court, but, which has not been given to the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the view that a limited mandamus could be granted to the effect that the petitioner shall be promoted as Assistant General Manager with effect from 06.05.2013 and the authority concerned shall make all necessary recommendation to the Government for granting exemption to the petitioner to promote him to the post of Deputy General Manager with effect from 19.02.2016, when his junior was elevated. Such proposal should be sent immediately, so that, atleast, either he could retire as Deputy General Manager or the benefit could be accrued to him even after his retirement. In fact, the petitioner shall be deemed to have been promoted as a Deputy General Manager.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar paa To
The Chairman & Managing Director State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited (SIPCOT Limited) 19-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road Egmore Chennai-600 008. 2 ccs to Mr.K.Sridhar Associates, sr.36090 1 cc to Mr.Sudharshana Sundar, Advocate, sr.36011 W.P.No.13779 of 2016 sks co kra 28.06.2016
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a government servant with pending charges, now quashed, is entitled to be promoted retrospectively from the date his junior was promoted.
Whether waiver of minimum service mandatory relaxations by government can be recommended for Deputy General Manager promotion on retirement eve.
E. Bathiah
The Chairman & Managing Director State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited (SIPCOT Limited)
B. Rajendran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
