A KANNIAPPAN Vs. DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES TEYNAMPET

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed an application in O.A.No.2653 of 2000 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal seeking for a direction to the respondent to include his name in the revised promotion of panel for the post of Sub-Inspector of Fisheries in the Panel in Rc.No.11/6039/93 dated 08.02.2000 and consequently to promote the petitioner in the place above the next juniors to the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner, joined the Fisheries Subordinate Service Department on 22.08.1974 as Sub-Assistant, Inspector of Fisheries. After eight years of his unblemished service, on 16.06.1982, he was promoted as Fisheries Overseer at Mathuranthagam on deputation. After serving in various places, he was finally posted at Dharmapuri Keserigli Hallu Dam as Fisheries Overseer on 01.06.1999. Whileso, he made a representation to the Director of Fisheries in respect of his promotion as Sub-Inspector of Fisheries on 22.04.1993, but the said representation was rejected by the respondent. As against that, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Government on 22.06.1993 and the same was rejected. After rejection of the same, the petitioner, finally sent a representation dated 22.07.1996 to the Government, as there was no response from the Secretary to Government Animal Husbandry and Fisheries, the petitioner filed an application in O.A.No.1558 of 1996 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and the Learned Tribunal, while considering the petitioner's prayer, by an order dated 01.08.1996, directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 22.01.1996 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of order. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was issued with a charge memo dated 08.08.1996, containing six charges under Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "Rule). Immediately, thereafter, the petitioner submitted his explanation and not being satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority, after holding an enquiry and on receipt of the findings of the Enquiry Officer, which held him guilty of the charges, the Disciplinary Authority finally, by an order dated 15.05.2000,has imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for six months without cumulative effect.

(3.) BE that as it may, the question to be decided is whether the petitioner is entitled to seek any direction before this Court to the respondent to include his name in the panel drawn on 08.02.2000, in spite of the imposition of the punishment of stoppage of his next yearly increment for six months without cumulative effect. It is relevant to refer the G.O.248 dated 20.10.1997 in para '4' of the G.O. which is extracted as follows:-