AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma
The petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to include the
name of the petitioner in the panel drawn for promotion to the post of Forester, for the year 2010-2011 and also to promote the petitioner to the
post of Forester with all service and monetary benefits.
The petitioner joined the Forest Department as Social Forestry Worker on NMR basis. The petitioner was then appointed to the post of Forest
Watcher on 23.01.1995 on regular basis. The next avenue of promotion for the post of Forest Watcher is to the post of Forester.
It is pleaded case of the petitioner that though he is eligible for promotion, he has not been considered for the reason that on 26.11.2007, the
petitioner was issued charge memo under Sec.17(a) of the Tamilnadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, for not taking adequate care to
check illegal cutting of trees and for not wearing the uniform at the time of inspection. In the departmental proceedings, the petitioner was imposed
a minor punishment of postponment of increament for one year without cumulative effect. The period of punishment came to an end on
31.03.2009.
The learned counsel for the respondents, contends that provision to the petitioner has been denied in view of the Government instruction
stipulating that the person who has suffered punishment in departmental proceedings cannot be considered for promotion for a period of five years
after the expiry of punishment period.
The case of the respondents therefore is that the petitioner could not be considered for promotion as the period of five years has not been
expired from the date of expiry of the punishment dated 31.03.2009.
The stand of the respondents deserves to be rejected in view of the judgment of the Hon''ble Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of
The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Thanjavur Range, Thanjavur and another vs. V. Rani Writ Appeal (MD) Nos. 315, 355, 587, 869 and
826/2010 and 149/2011 & 280 of 2011 holding therein as under:
24 While it is true that the pendency of punishment can be certainly a ground for the Government to deny the promotion till the completion of the
period of punishment, it can never be said that even after the period of punishment is over, in between the date of crucial date and the date of
punishment there must be one year in case of censure and five years in other cases as disqualification period. The above said impediment in the
name of ''Check period'' can never be imposed on a Government servant..........
The position of law is not disputed by the learned counsel for the State, however the learned State counsel contend that the petitioner was
issued charge memo for serious misconduct, therefore, judgment of the Hon''ble Full Bench is not applicable to his case.
On consideration, I find force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Once minor punishment awarded to the
petitioner, the instruction of the State Government withholding promotion for five years will not be applicable to the case of the petitioner.
The dispute raised in this writ petition therefore is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon''ble Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case
of The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Thanjavur Range, Thanjavur and another vs. V. Rani [cited supra]
Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The writ in the nature of mandamus is issued directing the respondents to include the name of the
petitioner in the panel drawn for the promotion to the post of Forester for the year 2010-2011 and consider his case for promotion. In case the
petitioner found fit for promotion, he shall be entitled to promotion from the date of his immediate junior was promoted, with all consequential
benefits. The needful shall be done within two months of the receipt of certified copy of this order.
No cost.