Dismissed

Thiyagarajan v. the Additional Chief Secretary to The Government of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC17 Dec 2024WP/1210/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A government servant challenged a G.O. imposing stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect after disciplinary proceedings over irregularities found in a vigilance check. The court dismissed the petition for non-exhaustion of the alternate remedy of review under Rule 37, granting liberty to file such a review.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; liberty to file Review Petition under Rule 37; competent authority directed to consider grievances on merits within two months. No costs; connected MPs closed.

Thiyagarajan Vs the Additional Chief Secretary to The… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Writ Petition No.1210 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated: 17/12/2024

¶4

C O R A M

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH

¶6

Writ Petition No.1210 of 2022 a n d

¶7

W.M.P.Nos.1285 and 1288 of 2022

Thiyagarajan

Petitioner

The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu Home (Tr.II Department) Fort St. George Chennai.

¶12

The Transport Commissioner Ezhilagam, Chepauk Chennai 600 005.

¶13

The Commissioner

¶14

for Disciplinary Proceedings Coimbatore.

¶15

Respondents

¶16

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

¶17

praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records in

¶18

connection with G.O.(2D0 No.302 Department of Home (Transport II) dated

¶19

1/12/2021 issued by the first respondent and quash the same.

¶20

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

¶21

Page No:1/6

¶22

Writ Petition No.1210 of 2022

¶23

For petitioner ... Mr.M.Kaviveerappan For respondents ... Mr.R.U.Dinesh Rajkumar Additional Government Pleader

¶24

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

This writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned G.O (2D) No.302 Home (Transport – II) Department, dated 1/12/2021 issued by the first respondent.

¶27

The case of the writ petitioner in brief is as follows:-

¶28

While the petitioner was working as Superintendent in the office of Regional Transport Office, Salem (West), a surprise check was conducted on 15/2/2013 by the Vigilance & Anti-Corruption officials along with the District Inspection Cell Officer and found that there are some irregularities of engaging private individuals to obtain illegal gratification on behalf of the petitioner. Charge memo dated 2/9/2014 was framed. The Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings, Coimbatore, after careful analysis of evidence on record, oral, documentary has come to the conclusion that the writ petitioner

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No:2/6

¶30

Writ Petition No.1210 of 2022

¶31

has failed to do his official duties with full devotion and imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has come up with the instant writ petition.

¶32

Heard Mr.M.Kaviveerappan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.U.Dinesh Raj Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶33

The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the writ petitioner has not filed any Review Petition under Rule 37 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Without exhausting the alternate remedy, the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶34

Perused the materials available on record.

¶35

It is well settled that if any Government servant is facing charges

¶36

or pending disciplinary proceedings should never be considered for promotion. Moreover, various guidelines were issued by the Government under the subject of preparing panel for promoting the qualified officials to

¶37

Page No:3/6

¶38

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

¶39

Writ Petition No.1210 of 2022

¶40

the next higher cadre has clearly stated that pendency of disciplinary proceeding is a bar to promotion. In such a view of the matter, name of the petitioner cannot be considered for promotion.

¶41

In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a Review Petition under Rule 37 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules. If the petitioner approaches the competent authority representing all his grievances, which he is now putting forth before this Court, the competent authority shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period

¶42

of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶43

No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

17/12/2024

mvs.

Index: yes/No

Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶48

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

¶49

Page No:4/6

¶50

Writ Petition No.1210 of 2022

¶51

¶52

The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu Home (Tr.II Department) Fort St. George Chennai.

¶53

The Transport Commissioner Ezhilagam, Chepauk Chennai 600 005.

¶54

The Commissioner for Disciplinary Proceedings Coimbatore.

¶55

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No:5/6

¶56

Writ Petition No.1210 of 2022

VIVEK KUMAR SINGH,J

mvs.

W.P.No.1210 of 2022

17/12/2024

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

¶62

Page No:6/6

Thiyagarajan v. the Additional Chief Secretary to The Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thiyagarajan v. the Additional Chief Secretary to The Government of Tamil Nadu

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

P.Nagajothi Vs The State of TamilNadu

Bharath Kumar Jain Vs State Represented by

D.Vimala Vs the Director

Dr.S.Ganga Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

K.v.Sathasivam Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Senthil Vs the Additional Chief Secretary to The Government of Tamil Nadu