An employee punished with stoppage of increment four days before superannuation challenged the punishment order and appellate rejection. Relying on a Division Bench ruling that routine retirement is not a 'contingency' under the second proviso to Rule 8(iii), the Court set aside both orders.
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.
WP(MD). No.25092 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 04.12.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
WP(MD)No.25092 of 2022
T.Jeyasekar ... Petitioner
versus
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling
1/8
WP(MD). No.25092 of 2022
for the records of the third and second respondents i.e., the Regional Deputy Director of Survey and Land Records, Madurai in his proceedings in R.C.A3/ 1081/2019 dated 25.02.2019 and the Director of Survey and Settlement, Chennai in his proceedings No.Na.Ka. Ga2/ 9586/2022 (Ni.A) dated 22.08.2022 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent i.e., the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Chennai to notionally promote the petitioner as Superintendent as per the inclusion of the petitioner's name in S.No.26 in the approved list of the year 2012-2013 and arrange to send revised pension proposals in the cadre of Superintendent within a specified time frame that may be fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Visvalingam
For Respondents : Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh, Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The petitioner, while serving as Assistant in the office of the 4th respondent, was issued with a charge memo. He has submitted his explanation to the charge memo on 12.12.2018. Thereafter, an Enquiry Officer was appointed and after the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has submitted his report on 22.12.2018. The disciplinary authority, namely, the 4th respondent, after considering the Enquiry Officer's report that the 2/8
WP(MD). No.25092 of 2022
charges were not proved, dropped the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent/appellate authority suo motu examined the issue and imposed a punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of six months without cumulative effect and also directed the 4th respondent to implement the punishment, by his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A3/1081/2019 dated 25.02.2019. The petitiner was due to retire on superannuation on 28.02.2019. Challenging the order of punishment, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the appellate authority and the same was rejected by the appellate authority by order dated 22.08.2022. Challenging the order of punishment dated 25.02.2019 and the order of the appellate authority dated 22.08.2022, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
3/8
WP(MD). No.25092 of 2022
the provisio to Rule 8(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, in cases where the penalty of withholding of increment cannot be given effect to fully for any contingency that arose after the penalty of withholding of increment is imposed, the monetary value equivalent to the amount of such increments that cannot be given effect to shall be recovered from the person. Therefore, the order of punishment can be implemented as per the second proviso to Rule 8(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and they have also recovered a sum of Rs.11,772/- (the monetary value equivalent to the amount of withholding of increment) from the petitioner.
“6. The second proviso itself makes it clear that such proviso can be made applicable only when the punishment of withholding of increment cannot be
4/8
WP(MD). No.25092 of 2022
implemented on account of any contingency that arises after the imposition of penalty. The expression of “contingency” means as per Oxford Dictionary “a future event or circumstance which is possible but cannot be predicted with certainty”. It obviously cannot mean an event which was a normal and inevitable incident of employment namely routine retirement on attaining the age of superannuation. No “contingency” arose in the present case, as the delinquent retired on 31.03.2007 in normal course. The second proviso, added by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.113, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (N) Department dated 02.08.2006, is thus not applicable.
5/8
WP(MD). No.25092 of 2022
In view of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court as cited supra, the order of punishment issued by the 3rd respondent dated 25.02.2019 cannot be sustainable.
punishment issued by the 3rd respondent dated 25.02.2019 and the order of the appellate authority dated 22.08.2022 are hereby set aside. No costs.
04.12.2024
ogy NCC : Yes / No. Index : Yes / No. Internet: Yes / No. To
6/8
WP(MD). No.25092 of 2022
7/8
WP(MD). No.25092 of 2022
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
ogy
WP(MD) No.25092 of 2022
04.12.2024
8/8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether stoppage of increment imposed days before superannuation could be recovered as monetary value under the second proviso to Rule 8(iii) of the TN Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.
Whether normal retirement on superannuation constitutes a 'contingency' permitting monetary recovery in lieu of withheld increment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.A.(MD)No.239 of 2007, dated 03.09.2007Relied on¶4
2 provisions across 2 enactments
T.Jeyasekar
The Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Secretariat
The Director of Survey and Settlement
The Regional Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, Madurai
The Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, District Survey Office, Sivagangai
B.Pugalandhi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
