N GANAPATHY Vs. COLLECTOR NAGAPATTINAM NAGAPATTINAM DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant was initially appointed as Junior Assistnat on 1/9/1973 and subsequently he was promoted as Assistant in October 1982. Thereafter, he was promoted as Deputy Tahsildar and posted in the office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mayiladuthurai. His services in the post of Deputy Tahsildar was also regularised with effect from 30/10/1992. Subsequently, the respondent, by his proceedings dated 16/10/1999 drawn a panel for promotion to the post of Tahsildars for the year 1998 in which the names of 31 persons have been included, but the name of the applicant was not included. According to the applicant, the persons, who were shown in serial Nos. 17 to 31 of the said panel dated 16.10.1999 are juniors to him. In the said proceedings, it was stated that the applicant's name was not included and he was found to be unfit for inclusion in the panel as charges are pending against the applicant. Therefore, challenging the same, the applicant has filed the above Original Application before the Tribunal. On abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P. No. 38420 of 2006.

(2.) It is seen from the records that a charge memo was issued by the respondent on 1/12/1997 to the petitioner containing four charges under Rule 17 (a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The charges relates to the unauthorised absence of the petitioner. After conducting an enquiry, the respondent, by proceedings dated 28/3/1998 imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect. The petitioner has filed an appeal before the Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005. The appeal was also rejected by proceedings dated 24/7/1998. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed a revision petition to the Government on 17/8/1998. During the pendency of the Original Application, it is stated that the Revision Petition was allowed by the Government modifying the punishment into one of stoppage of increment for a period of six months without cumulative effect.

(3.) The petitioner would contend that the refusal of the respondent to include his name in the panel for promotion to the post of Tahsildar on the basis of minor punishment of stoppage of increment is illegal. According to the petitioner, such minor punishment is not a bar for inclusion of his name in the panel for promotion to the post of Tahsildar and therefore, he is entitled for inclusion of his name in the panel for the year 1998.