Allowed

A.Manjunathan(Deceased), v. The District Collector

Madras HC4 Jan 2022WP/27262/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, widow of a deceased government servant, challenged the cancellation of her husband's promotion order issued under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The Court held that the service rules did not empower the authority to retrospectively cancel an already finalized promotion order.

What did the court decide?

Set aside impugned cancellation order; direction to respondent to disburse death cum retirement benefits, family pension, and other pensionary benefits with continuity of service from 03.09.2013.

A.Manjunathan(Deceased), Vs The District Collector — Dowry and Cruelty | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 04.01.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶5

W.P.No.27262 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶6

A.Manjunathan(Deceased) (*) C.Harihara Vigneshwari

¶7

(substituted as LR's of Deceased sole petitioner vide order dated 04.01.2022 in W.M.P.No.26494 of 2021 in W.P.No.27262 of 2015)

¶8

...Petitioner

¶9

¶10

The District Collector, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri.

¶11

...Respondent

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for entire records in connection with the impugned Cancellation Order issued by the respondent vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.9260/2013/K2 dated 17.12.2013 cancelling the promotion order promoting the petitioner to the post of Deputy Block Development Officer and quash the same and direct the respondent to pay all the consequential and attendant benefits to the petitioner from 03.09.2013 as if the petitioner performed his duties in the promoted post of Deputy Block Development Officer within a stipulated time.

¶13

For Petitioner : Ms.A.Pramila

¶14

For Respondent : Mr.P.Ganesan Government Advocate

¶15

Thiru.A.Manjunathan, who was appointed to the post of Junior Assistant in the Rural Development department on 16.1.1999 and subsequently promoted as Assistant on 05.10.2005. Later his name was included in the Panel for Promotion for the post of Deputy Block Development Officer, through the proceedings of the

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

respondent dated 03.06.2013. The panel was upheld and he was issued with a Promotion order on 03.09.2013, promoting him to the post of Deputy Block Development Officer (Adi Dravida, Pennagaram).

¶18

On 13.09.2013, the Government employee was issued with a charge memorandum under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules'). By referring to the charges under Rule 17(b), the petitioner's Promotion order, dated 13.09.2013 was cancelled through an impugned order dated 17.12.2013. Pending the Writ Petition, the Government employee had expired and is now substituted by his widow, who is the petitioner herein.

¶19

Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that, since the petitioner's husband was promoted on 03.09.2013, the respondent has no authority to cancel the Promotion order, based on the subsequent disciplinary action. The learned Special Government Pleader on the other hand would submit that the petitioner's husband, though was promoted on 03.09.2013, was not relieved from the post of Bhoodan Inspector till 31.01.2015 and therefore, the respondent was justified in cancelling the Promotion order.

¶20

Under Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, whenever departmental action is pending as against the Government employee, the authorities may be empowered to withhold any Promotions to an employee who is facing the charges. The authorities may also be empowered to place such a Government employee under suspension, pending disciplinary action or withhold inclusion of the delinquent's name in a Panel for Promotion. However, the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules or any other Service Rules does not provide for cancellation of a Promotion, which has already been given, prior to the framing of charges under Rule 17(b). What would be relevant to determine a Promotion, would be the crucial date for consideration of a Government employee's candidature for Promotion. When admittedly, the petitioner was found to be fit for Promotion as on the crucial date and accordingly, a Promotion order that was also issued on 03.09.2013 itself, the authorities have no jurisdiction to retrospectively cancel such a Promotion order, based on the subsequent framing of charges.

¶21

In this background, it is seen from the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, that the name of the petitioner's husband was included in the Panel for Promotion, to the post of Deputy Block Development Officer, through the proceedings of the District Collector dated 03.06.2013. Apparently, his name was considered for Promotion, since there was no departmental action

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

pending against him on the crucial date. It is in this background, the Promotion order has also been given on 31.01.2003. In the absence of any provisions under the Service Rules, empowering the respondent to retrospectively cancel the Promotion given, the present impugned order cannot be sustained.

¶24

A mere reference that the petitioner was not relieved from the post, will not entitle the respondent to cancel a Promotion order, which has already been given. There are no Rules or Regulations governing such an action, to retrospectively cancel a Promotion, on the ground that the incumbent was not relieved from the post or that he had not joined the Promotional post.

¶25

For the reasons citied above, the proceedings of the respondent in Na.Ka.No.9260/2013/K2, dated 17.12.2013 is set aside. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the respondent herein, to disburse all the death cum retirement benefits, along with other pensionary benefits, including family pension, due to the Government employee namely A.Manjunathan, to the petitioner herein, together with continuity of service, by taking into account that the petitioner's husband was holding the post of Deputy Block Development Officer, with effect from 03.09.2013 onwards. Such an action of disbursing the monetary benefits shall be done atleast within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This Writ Petition stands allowed, accordingly. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶26

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS III) Dated : 12.01.2022

¶27

(*) Corrected as per Letter dated 19.01.2022 made in W.P.No.27262 of 2015

¶28

Sd/Sub Assistant Registrar(CO II) Dated : 19.01.2022

¶29

//True Copy//

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

¶32

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶33

¶34

The District Collector, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri.

¶35

To be Substituted the order already Despatched on 12.01.2022

¶36

+1cc to Mr.P.Nethaji, Advocate, S.R.No.739 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.1073

¶37

W.P.No.27262 of 2015

¶38

PVS[co] NSK 12/01/2022 NSK 19/01/2022

¶39

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

A.Manjunathan(Deceased), v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Manjunathan(Deceased), v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Jaleel Vs the Management of E.I.D. Parry

S.Shanmugavelu Vs Elangovan

I.v.Lakshmi Vs S.Mars

The Management Vs a.Arumugam

The Management of S.M.I. Vs The Presiding Officer

The Management Vs The Presiding Officer