N. Ramasamy vs The Chairman

S. Nagamuthu, J.—The petitioner was working as Supernumerary Inspector of Assessment during the year 1996 and 1997. His next avenue of promotion is to the post of Inspector of Assessment. The Chief Engineer, Personnel, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board issued an instruction under letter No. 094826/294/G252/2006-2 dated 06.01.2007, calling upon all the Superintending Engineers in the State to prepare the panel for promotion to the post of Regular Inspector of Assessment based on crucial date as on 20.03.2006. According to the petitioner, he was hoping that his name would be included in the panel for promotion. But in the list so prepared, his name was not included. The reason stated for non-inclusion is that there was disciplinary proceedings pending against him. According to the petitioner, as on the crucial date viz., 20.03.2006, there was no disciplinary proceedings pending against him. Therefore, his non-inclusion in the panel is illegal. That is how the petitioner is before this Court, with this Writ Petition.

In the counter filed by the Chief Engineer, Personal, it is stated inter-alia that the petitioner had committed misconduct during the year 2006. In respect of the same, the Junior Engineer, Town/Alangulam issued show cause notice dated 28.07.2006, to the petitioner, calling upon him to submit his explanation. Thereafter, the Assistant Executive Engineer (Distribution), Alangulam issued a charge memo to the petitioner under Clause 19(ii) and (ix) of Board Standing order under Memo No. 1742/Adm/Ads/2007 dated 19.03.2008. In the said proceedings, ultimately, the petitioner was punished. The punishment is postponement of increment for six months without cumulative effect. As against that, the petitioner preferred appeal to the third respondent and that appeal was dismissed on 17.07.2008. As a matter of fact, as early as on 11.12.2006, the Vigilance Cell of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board has sent a report under letter No. 36266/B4/B42/2006-1 reporting about the above disciplinary proceedings. It is because of the above proceedings, the petitioner was not included in the panel.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and also perused the records carefully.

According to the petitioner, since there was no disciplinary proceedings as on 20.03.2006, his non-inclusion in the panel is illegal. But according to the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, as stated in the counter, since enquiry was pending with the Vigilance Cell in the year 2006, which culminated into issuance of charge memo, framing of charges and finally in punishment, he was not included in the panel for promotion.

The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents drawn the attention of this Court to sub-regulation 2(c) of regulation 106 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations, which states as follows:

"Where it is necessary to appoint or promote an employee against whom an enquiry into allegations of corruption or misconduct is pending the appointing authority may appoint or promote him temporarily pending enquiry in the charges against him. The competent authority shall have discretion to make regular appointments or promotions in suitable cases."

Referring to the said sub-regulation, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was not promoted because of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings.

I have considered the above submissions.

It is not in controversy before this Court that the crucial date for preparation of panel for promotion is 20.03.2006. Admittedly, as on the said crucial date there was no disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner. The report of Vigilance Cell was sent only on 11.12.2006. Charge memo was issued only thereafter on 19.03.2008. Punishment was imposed on 21.05.2008, which was confirmed on 17.07.2008. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the disciplinary proceedings was subsequent to the crucial date. Therefore, since as on the crucial date there was no disciplinary proceedings pending, the petitioner should have been included in the panel for promotion. Thus, I hold that the non-inclusion of the petitioner is illegal.

Now, it is brought to my notice that subsequently, the petitioner was promoted as Inspector of Assessment on 18.04.2012. In my considered opinion, the said promotion as Inspector of Assessment should be given effect to retrospectively from the date on which his immediate junior was promoted as Inspector of Assessment.

In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside with a further direction to the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the panel for promotion dated 19.10.2007 and give effect to the promotion to the post to Inspector of Assessment retrospectively from the date on which his immediate junior was promoted. Such consequential order shall be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.