Allowed

P.Madhaiyan v. The Director

Madras HC25 Jul 2016WP/19570/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired employee challenged orders reversing his exoneration and stopping his increments as invalid due to procedural time-bar violations and lack of natural justice.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders dated 19.02.2014 and 05.11.2014 were set aside; the petitioner is entitled to retirement benefits and consequential promotion benefits.

What the court decided

AI extract

P.Madhaiyan Vs The Director — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2016)

¶19

Mr.R.S.Anandan, the learned counsel for the petitioner would mainly contend that the Appellate Authority has simply obeyed the order of the Revisional Authority, by cancelling the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, on 29.11.2013 and by passing the impugned order in W.P.No. 33228 of 2014, dated 05.11.2014, imposing the punishment of stoppage of next increment for six months without cumulative effect, that too without giving notice to the petitioner and therefore, the said order is not an independent order and this would only go to show that there is non-application of mind on the part of the Appellate Authority. He would nextly contend that as per Rule 36 (1)(iii) of the Rules, if the Appellate Authority wants to review the order of the Original Authority, the same has to be done within six months from the date of the order. But, in this case, the Original Authority, based on the Enquiry Report, passed an order, on 29.11.2013, exonerating the petitioner from all the charges levelled against him and the same was signed on 03.12.2013 and the same was communicated to the petitioner on 30.01.2014. While so, the Revisional Authority, as per the impugned order in W.P.No. 19570 of 2014, dated 19.02.2014, directed the Appellate Authority to review the exoneration order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and accordingly, the Appellate Authority passed the impugned order in W.P.No.33228 of 2014, only on 05.11.2014, imposing the punishment of stoppage of next increment for a period of six months without cumulative effect, i.e., beyond the period of six months prescribed under Rule 36(1)(iii) of the Rules, and therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable. He would rely on the judgment of this Court reported in 1998 (1) CTC 283, A.Thangavelu vs. The Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, and would submit that the subject matter is squarely covered by the above judgment, wherein, this Court after referring to Rule 36(1)(iii) of the Rules has categorically held that even if the Appellate Authority wants to review the order of the Original Authority, the same has to be done within six months from the date of the order and not beyond that period. Relying on the above said judgment, the learned counsel would contend that the impugned orders are per se illegal and therefore, they are liable to be set aside.

¶24

On a careful consideration of the entire proceedings, it is seen that the charge memo, with five counts of charges, was issued to the petitioner on 05.12.2011. The main charge was that the petitioner stood as a guarantor to a staff member, who has failed to repay the borrowed amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. The petitioner has submitted his explanation, which was not accepted. Thereafter, an Enquiry Officer was appointed, who after enquiry, has submitted his report holding that all the five counts of charges are not proved. Based on the Enquiry Report, the Disciplinary Authority, by order dated 29.11.2013, exonerated the petitioner from all the five counts of charges levelled against him. The same was served and received by the petitioner, on 30.01.2014. While so, by order, dated 19.02.2014, the Revisional Authority has given a direction to the Appellate Authority, to review the exoneration order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, dated 29.11.2013, by invoking Rule 36(1)(iii)(C) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules and also cancelled the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, that too without notice to the petitioner, and directed to keep the disciplinary action against the petitioner pending. Challenging the order of the Revisional Authority, dated 19.02.2014, the Writ Petition in W.P.No. 19570 of 2014 has been filed. Pending the above Writ Petition, the Revisional Authority, by order, dated 27.08.2014, released the promotional panel for the year 2014-15, for the promotion to the post of Deputy Inspector of Survey from the post of Sub-Inspector of Survey. According to the petitioner, though, he was fully qualified for the promotion to the post of Deputy Inspector of Survey, by citing the pendency of the disciplinary action, his name was overlooked. The non-inclusion of his name in the promotion panel was also communicated to the petitioner by the 2^nd respondent as per order, dated 27.08.2014. Against the non-inclusion of his name in the promotional panel for the year 2014-15 for the promotion post of Deputy Inspector of Survey, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Revisional Authority, on 23.09.2014, but, there was no response. While so, the Appellate Authority, as per the order, dated 05.11.2014, imposed the punishment of stoppage of next increment for a period of six months without cumulative effect. Against which, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Revisional Authority, on 21.11.2014. Challenging the order dated 05.11.2014, the Writ Petition in W.P.No.33228 of 2014 has been filed.

P.Madhaiyan v. The Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

H. Mohammed Hyder Ali Vs the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board

M.Senthil Vadivel, Vs the Managing Director

S.S.Perumal, S/O.S.Sonaimuthu Vs the Senior Regional Manager

Mr.Y.J.Binu Shalin Vs The Government of Tamilnadu

P.Madhaiyan v. The Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

H. Mohammed Hyder Ali Vs the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board

M.Senthil Vadivel, Vs the Managing Director

S.S.Perumal, S/O.S.Sonaimuthu Vs the Senior Regional Manager

Mr.Y.J.Binu Shalin Vs The Government of Tamilnadu

A compact analysis

Coram

R.Ponnuraj, Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative

G.Dhanalakshmi, Vs State of Tamilnadu