Madras High Court
M.Suthakar Yesudian vs The Agriculture Production ... on 22 April, 2022
W.P.No.10016 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.04.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.P.No.10016 of 2010
M.Suthakar Yesudian ... Petitioner
Versus
1.The Agriculture Production Commissioner and
Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,
Department of Agriculture,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director of Horticulture and Plantation crops,
Agriculture Complex,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the orders of
the first respondent herein in Letter No.1364/(AA)/2010-3, dated
10.03.2010, quash the same and direct the first respondent herein to
promote the petitioner as Joint Director of Horticulture after promoting him
as Deputy Director of Horticulture without reference to the pendency of the
disciplinary proceedings which were initiated in the year 2000.
For Petitioner : Mr. S.V. Karthikeyan
For Respondents : Ms. E. Renganayaki,
Additional Government Pleader.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.10016 of 2010
ORDER
The petitioner, who was working as Assistant Director of Horticulture
under the first and second respondents has filed the Writ Petition,
challenging the order dated 10.03.2010 passed by the first respondent
whereby the request of the petitioner to promote him to the post of Deputy
Director of Horticulture with effect from the date of promotion of his Junior
was turned down.
2.Heard Mr. S.V. Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Ms. E. Renganayaki, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for
the respondents.
3.Mr. S.V. Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that the petitioner was originally issued with a charge memorandum
dated 24.10.2000. The same was kept pending till the date of his
superannuation and only after the date of superannuation on 21.12.2012, by
the Government order in G.O. (3D).No.210, the petitioner was exonerated
of the charges and proceedings were dropped. In the meanwhile, yet another
charge memorandum was issued to the petitioner on 27.11.2006 and by an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.10016 of 2010
order dated 04.02.2010, the punishment of censure was imposed against
him. In the meanwhile, the petitioner's immediate Junior one Thiru. G.
Mohan has been promoted as Deputy Director of Horticulture, vide
G.O.Rt.No.155, Agriculture (AA7) Department, dated 09.05.2006.
Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be promoted as Deputy Director of
Horticulture with effect from the said date. However, in the order impugned
in the Writ Petition, the first respondent erroneously took into consideration
the second charge memorandum dated 27.11.2006, and the punishment of
censure imposed and denied the promotion. He would submit that even
though it is a matter of fact that the first charge memorandum was pending
as on date passing of the impugned order subsequently after passing of the
impugned order and filing the Writ Petition by the above mentioned
G.O.No.210, dated 21.10.2012, he was exonerated on the charges. Once, he
was exonerated from the charge as a natural corollary, his case which was
overlooked on 09.05.2006 for the factum of the pendency of the charge
memorandum, dated 24.10.2000, has to be remedied and undone and he is
entitled to be promoted from the date of promotion of his Junior viz.,
Thiru.G. Mohan.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.10016 of 2010
4.Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing
for the respondents would submit that as on the date of passing of the
impugned order, the said charge memorandum was pending, therefore, no
exception could be taken to the reasons contained in the impugned order,
because, even if the second charge memorandum dated 27.11.2006 is not to
be considered, still the previous charge memorandum was pending.
5.I have considered the rival submissions made on behalf of both
sides and perused the materials of the case.
6.As far as the impugned order is concerned, it denied the claim for
promotion of the petitioner, based on the charge memorandum dated
27.11.2006 and consequential punishment of censure. However, now, as per
the written instructions produced by the learned Additional Government
Pleader, it is very clear that the petitioner's Junior Thiru. G. Mohan was
promoted as Deputy Director of Horticulture by G.O.Rt.No.155, on
09.05.2006 itself. Therefore, as on date when the petitioner's Junior was
considered and the petitioner’s case was overlooked, the second charge
memorandum was not at all issued. By virtue of the Judgment of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.10016 of 2010
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Union of India etc, Vs. K.V.
Janakiraman etc1, the petitioner's promotion can be passed over/kept in
sealed cover only if the departmental proceedings initiated by way of charge
memorandum. Only the earlier charge memorandum dated 24.10.2000
which was pending as on date of promotion of the petitioner's Junior can be
put against him. Though the respondents were right in passing over the case
of the petitioner and overlooking him, because of the said charge
memorandum was pending, but, once subsequently by order dated
29.10.2012, the petitioner was exonerated on the said charge, the petitioner
thereafter is entitled to be considered for promotion from the date of
promotion of his Junior, by opening of the sealed cover if the respondents
followed such procedure and even if it is not kept in the sealed cover and
his case has to be considered and to be granted promotion with effect from
the date of promotion of his Junior.
7.In view of my aforesaid findings and in view of the fact that the
petitioner has superannuated from the service, I am inclined to allow the
Writ Petition under the following terms:-
1 1991 AIR 2010 : 1991 SCR (3) 790
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.10016 of 2010
i) The impugned order of the first respondent dated 10.03.2010 is set
aside;
ii) The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner
and to grant him notional promotion as Deputy Director of Horticulture with
effect from 09.05.2006;
iii) The respondents are directed to re-fix the last drawn salary of the
petitioner accordingly and calculate the retiral benefits and pension;
iv) The petitioner will be entitled to the arrears of retiral benefits and
pension, however, without any interest;
v) The petitioner will not be entitled to the arrears of salary from
09.05.2006 i.e., the date of notional promotion and till the date of
superannuation.
vi) The respondents are directed to carry out the above exercises
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
vii) However, there shall be order as to costs.
22.04.2022
Index : Yes/No
Speaking/Non-Speaking Order : Yes/No
klt
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.10016 of 2010
To
1.The Agriculture Production Commissioner and
Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,
Department of Agriculture,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director of Horticulture and Plantation crops,
Agriculture Complex,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.10016 of 2010
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY. J.,
klt
W.P.No.10016 of 2010
22.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
