Madras High Court
D.Anbazhagan vs Tamil Nadu Electricity And ... on 9 November, 2022
W.P.No.30389 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.11.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.30389 of 2017
D.Anbazhagan ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.Tamil nadu Electricity and Distribution Corporation
Rep.by its Chairman cum Managing Director,
144, NPKRR Maligai, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
2.The Chief Engineer (Personnel),
Tamil nadu Electricity and Distribution Corporation
144, NPKRR Maligai, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002. ..Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to promote the
petitioner to the post of Accounts officer whose name is though included but
deferred in the panel viz. (Per) CMD TANGEDCO Proceedings No.175
dated 20.10.2017 without reference to the minor punishment “Censure”
with all consequential benefits arising thereof and issue further orders,
directions as this Honourable court deems fit.
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.30389 of 2017
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Prakash
Senior Counsel
For Mr.K.Krishnamoorthy
For Respondents : Mr.P.Subramanian
Standing Counsel
[For TANGEDCO]
ORDER
The writ of mandamus has been filed to direct the respondents to
promote the petitioner to the post of Accounts Officer by including his name
in the panel dated 20.10.2017 without reference to the punishment of
Censure imposed on the writ petitioner with all consequential benefits.
2. The petitioner was working as Assistant Accounts Officer. A charge
memorandum was issued against him under major penalty clause in
proceedings dated 23.09.2014. The allegation against the writ petitioner was
negligence and lack of supervision, which resulted in misappropriation of the
funds of the respondent Board to the tune of Rs.73,53,750/- by one
R.Saravanan, Assessor Grade-II. An enquiry was conducted. The
disciplinary proceedings ended with an order of punishment, which became
final.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.30389 of 2017
3. The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
mainly contented that the similarly placed co-employees namely (1)
Mr.L.Venkatesan, Executive Engineer (Palladam), (2) Mrs.Tamilselvi,
Executive Engineer (Palladam), (3) Mr.Viswalingam, Assistant Executive
Engineer, Palladam Division, (4) Mr.Satish, Deputy Finance Controller, (5)
K.Rajan, Deputy Finance Controller, (6) Mrs.K.Kalavathi, Assistant
Accounts Officer, (7) K.Vijayalakshmi, Accounts Officer were exonerated
from the charges. When the petitioner was also similarly placed, he was
imposed with the punishment of Censure by the first respondent vide order
dated 22.03.2017. The appeal preferred by the petitioner, challenging the
punishment was rejected. Thus, the name of the writ petitioner was deferred
for promotion to the post of Accounts Officer in the panel published on
20.10.2017. The petitioner made a representation, which was not considered
and thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.
4. The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the writ
petitioner mainly contended that the punishment of Censure would not have
any implications in the matter of grant of promotion. There is no monetary
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.30389 of 2017
implication in the punishment of Censure and therefore, passing over the
name of a person for a period of one year based on the punishment of
Censure is untenable. It is contended that the punishment of Censure is
equivalent to warning and therefore, it would not have the effect of debarring
a candidate from getting an opportunity for promotion to the higher post.
5. In the present case, the petitioner is eligible for inclusion of his
name in the panel of the year 2017-18 for promotion to the post of Assistant
Accounts Officer and his name was passed over merely on the ground that
the punishment of Censure was imposed on him in proceedings dated
22.03.2017.
6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
relied on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of The Deputy
Inspector General of Police, Thanjavur Range, Thanjavur Vs. V.Rani,
reported in 2011 (3) CTC 129, wherein the Government letter No.248, P &
AR Department dated 20.10.1997 was quashed by the Full Bench of this
Court and therefore, the check period of one year in the case of Censure and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.30389 of 2017
5 years in the case of other minor punishments were held as illegal and
impermissible.
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents
objected the said contention by stating that the punishment of Censure
imposed on the writ petitioner became final. Therefore, the petitioner is not
entitled for inclusion of his name in the panel of the year 2017-18. However,
the name of the petitioner was included in the next year panel and
accordingly, he was included in the panel and promoted. Therefore, the
petitioner is not entitled for any further relief.
8. The learned counsel for the respondents relied on the Board
proceedings issued in (Permanent) B.P.(FB).No.38, dated 11.10.2010. As
per the said Board proceedings, the duration of punishment of Censure is
one year. If the punishment of Censure is in currency on the crucial date or
imposed after the crucial date, but before actual promotion, the name of the
officer/employee should be passed over and his / her name should not be
included in that panel / should not be given promotion, as the case may be.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.30389 of 2017
9. Therefore, the Board proceedings will prevail over in the case of the
petitioner and the said Board Proceedings was not the subject matter before
the Full Bench of this Court in the case of V.Rani (cited supra). As as per
the said Board Proceedings, the Currency of Punishment of Censure was in
force during the relevant point of time, when the panel of the year 2017-18
was published. Thus, the name of the petitioner was passed over and in the
next year panel, he was considered and promoted. Thus, there is no
infirmity.
10. With reference to the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in
the case of V.Rani (cited supra), no doubt, the Government Letter No.248,
P & AR Department dated 20.10.1997, prescribing check period and one
year currency for the punishment of Censure was quashed. However, the
Full Bench quashed the Government letter mainly on the ground that the
said Government Letter No.248, P & AR Department dated 20.10.1997
were non Statutory rules framed under Proviso Article 309 of the
Constitution of India and cannot be read either with the Tamil Nadu
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.30389 of 2017
Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973 or under the Tamil Nadu Civil
Service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules.
11. Thus, the Full Bench of this Court quashed the Government letter
on the ground that it was non Statutory Rules and cannot be held valid.
However, the currency of punishment in general was not quashed by the Full
Bench of this Court. Even the Full Bench has stated that after the currency
of punishment, the eligible persons are to be considered for further
promotion, if they are otherwise eligible. The Full Bench has clearly held
that the check period is illegal.
12. Pertinently, after Full Bench judgment, the Law was enacted and
Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 (Act
No.14 of 2016) came into force.
13. The learned counsel for the respondents state that the Act was
adopted by the Board and they are following the Act. However, the learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioner objected the said contention by stating that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.30389 of 2017
there is no document filed by the respondents to establish that the provisions
of the Act 14 of 2016 were adopted by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board.
14. Presuming that the Board has not adopted the Service Conditions
Act, the said Service Conditions Act contemplates the currency of
punishment for Censure for a period of one year. The Service conditions Act
and the Rules contemplates procedures for promotion. Since the Censure has
been prescribed as a punishment under the Discipline and Appeal Rules, the
Government stipulates that the punishment of Censure will have the
currency for a period of one year and further, the currency of punishment is
a bar for promotion. As of now, the Censure is a punishment under the
Rules and the currency of punishment for Censure would be one year
period. Thus, the name of an employee during the said currency period shall
be passed over by the competent authorities, since the Full Bench of this
Court quashed the Government letter on the ground that it is non Statutory
in nature, and cannot be construed as a Rules. Thus, the Government
subsequently enacted the Statute and Rules, which contemplates Censure is
a punishment and the currency for Censure is one year duration.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.30389 of 2017
15. In the above context, we have to consider the Board Proceedings
in (Permanent) B.P.(FB).No.38 dated 11.10.2010 and the said Board
Proceedings were not quashed and the Board Proceedings stipulates that the
duration of punishment of Censure is one year. It further states that if the
punishment of Censure is in currency on the crucial date or imposed after
the crucial date but before actual promotion, the name of the
officer/employee should be passed over and his/her name should not be
included in that panel/should not be given promotion, as the case may be.
16. Thus, the said Board Proceedings holds good and as per the
Board Proceedings, the currency for punishment of Censure is one year and
therefore, quashing of Government Letter No.248, P & AR Department
dated 20.10.1997 by the Full Bench may not have any direct application as
far as the employees of the Board is concerned and more so, even in respect
of Government servants, such provisions were restored by enacting a Statute
namely Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.30389 of 2017
17. In the present case, the petitioner admittedly suffered the
punishment of Censure, which would have the currency for a period of one
year and therefore, his name was rightly passed over in the panel of the year
2017-18. However, the petitioner was subsequently included in the panel of
the year 2018-19 and was promoted to the post of Assistant Accounts
Officer. Thus, the petitioner has not made out any acceptable ground for the
purpose of considering the relief.
18. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
09.11.2022
Index : Yes
Speaking order:Yes
kak
To
1.The Chairman cum Managing Director,
Tamil nadu Electricity and Distribution Corporation
144, NPKRR Maligai, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.30389 of 2017
2.The Chief Engineer (Personnel),
Tamil nadu Electricity and Distribution Corporation
144, NPKRR Maligai, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.30389 of 2017
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
kak
W.P.No.30389 of 2017
09.11.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
