Madras High Court
G.Rajagopalan vs The Principal Secretary on 30 November, 2021
W.P.(MD)No.12948 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 30.11.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.P.(MD)No.12948 of 2014
G.Rajagopalan ... Petitioner
vs..
1.The Principal Secretary,
Cooperation, Food and Consumer -
Production Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Registrar of Cooperative Societies,
No.170, EVR Periyar Road,
Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.
3.The Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies,
Virudhunagar Region,
Collectorate Campus,
Virudhunagar. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to
impugned proceedings of the first respondent vide Letter No.3097/CD1/2011-6
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.12948 of 2014
dated 14.03.2013 and quash the same and consequently, direct the first respondent
to provide notional promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar of Cooperative
Societies from the date on which the petitioner's junior has been promoted and
pay the consequential monetary benefit accrued therein.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi
For Respondents : Mr.D.Sasikumar,
Additional Government Pleader.
*****
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, to quash the impugned proceedings dated 14.03.2013 and
consequently direct the first respondent to provide notional promotion to the post
of Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies from the date on which the
petitioner's junior has been promoted and pay the consequential monetary benefit
accrued therein.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Inspector in the Co-operative
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.12948 of 2014
Department on 12.03.1979. The petitioner was promoted as Senior Inspector on
15.02.1982 and then, promoted as Co-operative Sub-Registrar on 15.10.1993.
The petitioner attained superannuation on 30.04.2012 and the petitioner was
allowed to retire from service. When the petitioner was working as Co-operative
Sub-Registrar / Special Officer in the Office of Deputy Registrar of Co-operative
Societies, Srivilliputhur, was issued Charge Memo, dated 05.08.2003, under Rule
17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, on the
charges that the petitioner has not taken any action on the irregular appointees
and thereby, caused financial loss to the Society. For this, the petitioner was
imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of three months
without cumulative effect, vide order, dated 30.06.2004. The appeal filed by the
petitioner was dismissed, vide order, dated 26.04.2005 and the second appeal was
also dismissed, vide order, dated 23.06.2005.
3. Thereafter, the first respondent, after lapse of three years from the date of
second appeal, has remanded the matter back to the third respondent to continue
the disciplinary proceedings afresh, from the stage on which the proceedings was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.12948 of 2014
vitiated, vide G.O.(D).No.276, dated 08.08.2008. Therefore, the order, dated
30.06.2004, was cancelled and the third respondent initiated the disciplinary
proceedings afresh and passed an order with punishment of stoppage of increment
for three months without cumulative effect, vide order, dated 30.06.2009. In the
meanwhile, the second respondent has prepared panel of Co-operative Sub-
Registrar to be promoted as Deputy Registrar for the year 2009-2010. The crucial
date for the above panel was on 01.10.2008. Because of currency of punishment
for the check period, the petitioner was not granted the promotion. Again, in the
year 2010-2011, the petitioner was not included in the panel because of the
currency of punishment dated 30.06.2009 and thereby, the promotion of the
petitioner was deferred for two consecutive years in 2009-2010 and 2010-2011,
citing the charge dated, 05.08.2003 and consequential punishment, dated
30.06.2009.
4. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner
has not collected an outstanding amount of Rs.23,39,940.70 from three Spinning
Mills which was sale of cotton on credit basis. Then the petitioner had not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.12948 of 2014
collected the amount of returned cheques bearing a value of Rs.6,00,000/-. The
petitioner had not taken legal action against the credit dues and has withdrawn the
Court case before the collection of the entire amount. The petitioner had not
taken any action against the irregular appointments and several other charges.
The respondents relied on the Government Order where the check period has
been prescribed.
5. Heard Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi,learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr.D.Sasi Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader
appearing for the respondents.
6. The petitioner relied on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Full
Bench, in the case of Deputy Inspector General of Police, Thanjavur Range vs
V. Rani, reported in 2011 (3) CTC 129, wherein it has been stated that the
Government Order was not passed under the proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution of India and the same cannot have any statutory values. The
petitioner has relied on another judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.12948 of 2014
Court in G.Rajalakshmi vs Principal Secretary to Government, School
Education Department in W.A.(MD)No.983 of 2015 and judgment rendered in
M.Jagadeesan vs N.A.Senthilnathan reported in [2018] 8 MLJ 1/[2018] 0
Supreme(Mad)3440, wherein has stated check period cannot be put against the
delinquent employees.
7. It is seen from the facts of the case that the petitioner was served with
two Charge Memo dated, 05.08.2003 and 04.03.2004. For the first Charge
Memo, the punishment of stoppage of increment for three months was awarded
and for the second charge memo, Censure was awarded. As far as the first Charge
Memo is concerned, the punishment of stoppage of increment for 3 months is
with effect from 30.06.2004. As far as second Charge Memo is concerned the
punishment of Censure was imposed on 21.03.2005.
8. However the order dated 30.06.2004 was set aside and the case was
remanded for fresh consideration and the respondents have passed an order on
30.01.2009. Again the petitioner was imposed punishment of stoppage of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.12948 of 2014
increment for 3 months without cumulative effect on 30.06.2009. As far as the
punishment of Censure is concerned the same was enhanced to stoppage of
increment without cumulative effect by suo moto revision under Rule 36 vide
order dated 01.04.2010. Again the issue of check period comes in and the
petitioner was not eligible for promotion from 2003 onwards until his retirement.
Aggrieved over the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
9. In Rani’s case this Court, vide order, dated 27.04.2011 has held that
“check period” prescribed under government letters are not having statutory force
and has set aside the government letters. The amendment to the Rule came into
force from 24.02.2014. Since the currency of punishment is prior to the
amendment and the check period prescribed under government letters are quashed
this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to promotion after the
currency of punishment is over.
10. The punishment order for Charge Memo 1, is on 30.06.2004 and charge
memo 2 is on 21.05.2005. Since the order based on remand (charge memo 1) and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.12948 of 2014
the order modifying the punishment (charge memo 2) was passed on 30.06.2009
and 01.04.2010 respectively, then the petitioner is entitled to promotion prior to
the said orders. As on the crucial date of 01.08.2007, there is no currency of
punishment and the check period cannot be calculated as per judgment passed in
Rani’s case, then the petitioner is entitled to promotion as on crucial date of
01.08.2007 and for the panel 2008-2009.
11. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be
included notionally on the crucial date of 01.08.2007. Therefore, the respondents
are directed to grant notional promotion for the year 2008-2009 and consequent
pensionary benefits shall be granted. The said exercise shall be carried on within
a period of 4 weeks.
12. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.
30.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.12948 of 2014
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
jbr
Note:
In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order
may be utilized for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the Advocate/litigant
concerned.
To
1.The Principal Secretary,
Cooperation, Food and Consumer -
Production Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Registrar of Cooperative Societies,
No.170, EVR Periyar Road,
Kilpauk,
Chennai – 600 010.
3.The Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies,
Virudhunagar Region,
Collectorate Campus,
Virudhunagar.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.12948 of 2014
S.SRIMATHY, J
jbr
Order made in
W.P.(MD)No.12948 of 2014
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.12948 of 2014
30.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
