- (1.) THE Petitioner has preferred the instant Writ of Certoriarified Mandamus praying for issuance of an order by this Court, in calling for the records of the Third Respondent in connection with the impugned order issued in Memo R.No.729/A2/2010 dated 05.04.2010 and to quash the same. Further, the Petitioner has sought for passing of an order by this Court in directing the Respondents to promote her as Superintendent by including her name in the panel of the Superintendent for the year 2008 -09 and promote her as Superintendent and grant her all consequential service and monetary benefits on par with her juniors.
(2.) ACCORDING to the Petitioner, she joined the service as Junior Assistant in the Transport Department through selection conducted by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in the year 1994. She was promoted as Assistant in the year 1999. She was due for promotion as Superintendent in the panel for the year 2008 -09. However, she was not promoted on the ground of pending disciplinary proceedings. The Petitioner served as an Accountant in the office of Regional Transport Office, Madurai South during the period from October 2005. On 25.01.2005, a surprise check was conducted by the appropriate Authorities and District Inspection Cell found some irregularities. She was not in -charge of the seat wherein the irregularities are found out. Following the investigation conducted by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Dept., she was issued with a charge memo under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Service (D & A) Rules by the Second Respondent dated 21.01.2006. She denied the charges on the ground that as an accountant she had no role to play in respect of unaccounted cash from various persons. Even though the charge memo was issued, there was no progress in the conduct of the criminal case.
(3.) IN regard to the allegations made, she along with other officials including Regional Transport Office, in the office of RTO, Madurai South was proceeded departmentally. Therefore, the aggrieved RTO filed a Writ Petition before this Court for quashing of the charge memo stating that it is only the Government who is Competent to issue the charge memo under Rule 9(A) of Tamil Nadu Civil Service (D & A) Rules. However, this Court was pleased to quash the charge memo and directed the First Respondent to frame charges against all delinquents. Followed by that, Petitioner and others were issued with a charge memo in letter No.38854/Tr.II/2006/21 dated 12.03.2008. A common enquiry officer was appointed to try all the 13 delinquents who were connected in the said delinquency. In the meanwhile, Rule 9(A) of Tamil Nadu Civil Service (D & A) Rules was amended during the year 2009 and it was decided that in a case of more than one official of the same department was involved, the Competent Authority to issue a charge memo in respect of each delinquent is the immediate superior officer and after conducting an enquiry, it would be sent to the Disciplinary Authorities to pass final orders.;