S. Ramanathan vs The Secretary to Government Co-operative Food and Consumer Protection Department and The Registrar of Co-operative Societies

N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.—The prayer in the Writ Petition is to quash the order dated 29.4.1999 imposing the punishment of stoppage of

increment for three months without cumulative effect by the appellate authority on suo motu revision.

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was issued with a charge memo by the Deputy Registrar and after enquiry, the charges were

dropped by order dated 19.10.1997. The appellate authority namely Registrar of Co-operative Societies initiated suo motu review and issued

notice on 24.7.1998 and called for objections and after considering the objections, the said punishment was imposed. The said review power

having been exercised after six months the same is challenged in this Writ Petition as it is violative of Rule 36(1)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Civil

Services (D&A) Rules.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.

The very same issue was considered by his lordships P. Sathasivam J, (as he then was) in A. Thangavelu Vs. The Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies

Corporation Limited, and in paragraph No. 9, it is held as follows:

The reading of the above Rule makes the position clear that if the appellate authority wants to review the order of the Regional manager

(Original authority) the same has to be done within six months from the date of the order. In this case, as seen from the proceedings of the

respondent in Rc.G-4/85431/89 dated 16.11.1989 i.e. beyond the period of six months prescribed under Sub-clause (iii) of the above said Rules.

I have already mentioned that the date of order and the riview order dated 16.11.1989 has not been disputed by the learned Counsel appearing

for the petitioner. In the light of the above factual position, I am of the view that the first contention is accepted there is no need to go into the other

contentions raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. I am satisfied that the action of the respondent reviewing the order of the

Regional manager dated 12.4.1989 on 16.11.1989 is clearly prohibited as per Sub-clause (iii) of the above referred Rule. Hence, I hold that the

proceedings initiated by the respondents on 16.11.1989 is in violation of Rule 36(1)(iii) of the Rules. In those circumstances, as already stated I

need not go into the other factual position. Accordingly, the impugned order based on the proceedings of the respondent dated 16.11.1989 is

quashed.

In view of the decision above cited and having regard to the uncontroverted facts i.e. initiation of suo motu review after the expiry of six months

from the date of the order of the original authority dropping the charges, the initiation itself is without jurisdiction and consequently, the order

passed withholding of increment for three months without cumulative effect cannot be sustained.

The Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.