Dismissed

Mr.Rajmohan Raju v. The Director Local fund

Madras HC8 Dec 2022WP/8831/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a punishment of stoppage of increment for three months and the rejection of a belated appeal. The Court held that the appeal was not time-barred under the Rules and the High Court cannot reappreciate facts without illegality. The writ petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was dismissed with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

Mr.Rajmohan Raju Vs The Director Local fund — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.No.8831 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 08.12.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶6

W.P.No.8831 of 2018 and W.M.P.No.10700 of 2018

Mr.Rajmohan Raju

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Director, Local Fund Audit Department, Integrated Complex of Finance Department, Nandhanam,

¶11

Chennai – 35.

¶12

2.Joint Director,

¶13

Local Fund Audit Department, Integrated Complex of Finance Department, Nandhanam,

¶14

Chennai – 35.

¶15

3.Deputy Director, Local Fund Audit Department, Thoothukudi Corporation, Thoothukudi – 2.

¶16

4.The Assistant Director, Office of the Assistant Director of Local Fund Audit Department, 2^nd Floor, Municipal Building, Tuticorin – 02.

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

1/6

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/6

¶20

W.P.No.8831 of 2018

¶21

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records connected with findings of the enquiry officer/4^th respondent in Na.Ka.No.A1/1373/2012 dated 09.08.2014 and the subsequent punishment passed by 2^nd respondent Joint Director dated 08.01.2015 in Na.Ka.No.8243/Om1/2013 and rejection order of appeal passed by 1^st respondent Director in Na.Ka.No.8243/OM-1/2013 dated 06.12.2017 quash the same, consequently direct the respondents herein to include the name of the petitioner in the promotional panel list for Assistant Inspector being prepared by the respondent department.

¶22

For Respondents : M/s.C. Meera Arumugam, Additional Government Pleader

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Mr.Prasanth, learned Advocate, has filed a memo dated 08.12.2022

¶25

stating that they have already given a change of vakalat and they are no longer representing the petitioner.

¶26

2. Heard the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for

¶27

the respondents.

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/6

¶29

2/6

¶30

W.P.No.8831 of 2018

¶31

3. As against the levelled charges against the petitioner, an inquiry was conducted and through an order dated 08.01.2015, the second respondent herein, had imposed a punishment under Section 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, of stoppage of increment for a period of 3 months without cumulative effect. Under Rule 27(3) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, the petitioner is required to file an appeal against the said punishment order, within a period of 60 days. However, he had belatedly filed an appeal after 2 years before the first respondent herein, which came to be rejected on the ground of limitation. Apparently, the appeal has been filed after the punishment imposed on him, was implemented. When the rules required the delinquent to prefer an appeal within 60 days, a belated filing of the appeal cannot be entertained by the Appellate Authority and hence, there is no illegality in the order of the Appellate Authority.

¶32

4. Insofar as the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of

¶33

3 months without cumulative effect, is concerned, the grounds raised in the present Writ Petition urges upon only factual aspects which touches upon the charges of dereliction of duty. Such factual aspect requires to be

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/6

¶35

W.P.No.8831 of 2018

¶36

considered only by the Appellate Authority, had the petitioner preferred the appeal in time. Furthermore, this Court exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot be justified in reappreciating the facts and evidences before the Inquiry Officer, as I do not find any illegality or any other reason to hold the impugned order of punishment as vitiated. In the absence of the same, the grounds raised by the petitioner does not require interference.

¶37

5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.

¶38

Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶39

08.12.2022

¶40

Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No

¶41

Sni

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/6

¶43

W.P.No.8831 of 2018

¶44

¶45

1.The Director, Local Fund Audit Department, Integrated Complex of Finance Department, Nandhanam,

¶46

Chennai – 35.

¶47

2.Joint Director, Local Fund Audit Department, Integrated Complex of Finance Department, Nandhanam,

¶48

Chennai – 35.

¶49

3.Deputy Director, Local Fund Audit Department, Thoothukudi Corporation, Thoothukudi – 2.

¶50

4.The Assistant Director, Office of the Assistant Director of Local Fund Audit Department, 2^nd Floor, Municipal Building, Tuticorin – 02.

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/6

5/6

W.P.No.8831 of 2018

M.S.RAMESH,J.

Sni

W.P.No.8831 of 2018

08.12.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/6

Mr.Rajmohan Raju v. The Director Local fund

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Rajmohan Raju v. The Director Local fund

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

U.Selvam, S/o.Ulaganathan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

E.Srinivasa Varadhan, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

A.Kavitha, D/o.Alagesan, Vs The Principal Secretary to

M.Geetha, Vs The Additional Assistant

B.Mothilal Rao Vs The Secretary to Government

R.Soundararajan Vs The Principal Chief