- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) While the respondent was working as Assistant Statistical Officer, the State had initiated proceedings against him for misconduct in the year 1978 and by order dated 6/12/1982 punishment of stoppage of three increments without cumulative effect was imposed. On appeal, it was set aside in August 1984 and re-inquiry was directed. On fresh inquiry, the same punishment was imposed by proceedings dated 6/9/1984. For consideration of promotions to the post of Deputy Director during the year 1983-84, the name of the respondent was not included in the approved list as required under Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Statistics Service Rules (for short "the Rules"). The respondent filed OA No. 138 of 1991 in the Administrative tribunal, Madras. The tribunal by the impugned order dated 16/6/1993 allowed the OA No. 138 of 1991, set aside the order and directedreconsideration with effect from 1983-84. It would appear that subsequently his case was considered and he was promoted with effect from 31/8/1988.
(3.) The only question is whether non-consideration of the respondent's promotion for the year 1983-84 is in accordance with law. The tribunal found that having imposed the penalty of punishment of stoppage of three increments, promotion cannot be withheld on that account which otherwise amounts to "double jeopardy" offending Article 21 of the Constitution and that, therefore, it is arbitrary exercise of power violating Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution. We find the reasoning of the tribunal to be not correct.;