Madras High Court
W.Jennifer Pusphlatha vs The Principal Secretary To ... on 10 August, 2023
2023:MHC:3700
W.P.No.26759 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 10.08.2023
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P.No.26759 of 2018
and WMP No.31109 of 2018
W.Jennifer Pusphlatha
... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Principal Secretary to Government,
Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme
Department, Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Commissioner,
Commissionerate of Social Welfare,
Panagal Building, Saidapet,
Chennai – 600 015.
3. Director Cum Mission Director,
Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS),
No.1, Pammal Nalla Thambai Street,
Taramani, Chennai – 600 113.
....Respondents
Prayer: PETITION filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to
include the name of the petitioner in the list of Assistant Director/District
Social Welfare Officer/District Project Officer for the year 2017-18 issued by
the first respondent herein in his proceedings G.O.(3D) No.14 Social Welfare
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1
W.P.No.26759 of 2018
and Nutritious Meal Programme (SW-1) Department dated 25.09.2019,
without reference to the punishment of recovery imposed by the first
respondent herein in his proceedings G.O.(Pa).No.80 (Social Welfare &
Nutritious Food Program (Sa.Na) Department) dated 30.03.2016.
For Petitioner : Ms.Daisy
For Respondent : Mr.S.Ravikumar
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Mandamus seeking a
direction to the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the list of
Assistant Director/District Social Welfare Officer/District Project Officer for
the year 2017-18 issued by the first respondent, Principal Secretary to
Government, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department,
Chennai in his proceedings G.O.(3D) No.14 Social Welfare and Nutritious
Meal Programme (SW-1) Department dated 25.09.2019, without reference to
the punishment of recovery imposed by the said first respondent in his
proceedings G.O.(Pa).No.80 (Social Welfare & Nutritious Food Program
(Sa.Na) Department) dated 30.03.2016.
2. The petitioner herein originally joined the Government service on
23.07.1984 as Community Nutrition Instructor and was promoted as Child
Development Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.26759 of 2018
at Thondamuthur Block, Coimbatore District in the year 2003. She was
retired upon attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2020. While in
service, she was issued with a charge memo under Rule 17b of the Tamil
Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, on 08.11.2006.
3. Consequent to the charge memo, the petitioner had submitted her
explanation. Disciplinary proceedings were conducted and the enquiry officer
submitted his report on 30.07.2007. Thereafter, consequent upon the charges
having held established, the petitioner was called upon to give further
explanation which was given on 07.09.2007.
4. Let me not enter into a detailed discussion on the enquiry or charges
or the nature of punishment, except to refer to the punishment given, since the
petitioner did not question either the issuance of charge memo or the enqiury
conducted or the punishment that had been imposed upon her.
5. The main crux of the argument of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that though the enquiry officer has submitted his report on
30.07.2007, an order of punishment imposing stoppage of 3 increments with
cumulative effect has been passed only on 30.03.2016.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner assails that particular order and
states that in view of the fact that it was passed nearly 9 years after the
enquiry report was submitted, the petitioner's name was not included in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.26759 of 2018
panel for promotion which opened up in the year 2017-18 and therefore seeks
a mandamus that the name of the petitioner should be so included.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment
of the Division Bench of this Court dated 15.09.2021 made in W.A.No.646 of
2021 in the case of The Principal Secretary to Government, Handlooms,
Handicrafts, Textiles and Khadi (G1) Department and another V.
V.Kandasamy.
8. In the aforesaid decision, the Division Bench had examined the issue
of delay between the date of furnishing of enquiry report and the date of
imposition of punishment. In that particular case, the delinquent therein was
issued with the charge memo on 27.11.2001 and the enquiry report submitted
on 29.11.2005 was furnished to the delinquent on 30.03.2008. Thereafter, he
made a further representation on 10.04.2008. Finally, punishment of
stoppage of increment of 6 months with cumulative effect was imposed on
06.04.2011. The delinquent therein complained that consequent to the delay
in imposing punishment, his name was not included in the promotion panel
for the years 2010-2011 and 2011-12.
9. While examining that particular delay, the Division Bench observed
as follows:
7. The narration of the above facts makes it crystal
clear that there was enormous delay at every stage of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.26759 of 2018
disciplinary proceedings, to say, in the appointment of
Enquiry Officer, in furnishing the enquiry report to the
delinquent, passing the final order in the proceedings. There
is no plausible explanation given by the authorities for such
inordinate delay. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ
petition on this sole ground. If the snail-paced disciplinary
proceedings is conducted and concluded in time, the
pendency of the charge memo or punishment would not have
stood in the way of the writ petitioner in getting promotion.
Thus, there is some force in the argument of the learned
counsel for the writ petitioner, so also the conclusion
arrived at by the learned Single Judge, that the delay alone
denied the petitioner his rightful promotion, as the
disciplinary authority and the Government Page did not
bother to take forward the disciplinary proceedings to
logical conclusion in time, and they took nearly about 10
years to impose the punishment.
10. The facts in this case are slightly different. Quite apart from
issuing charge memo to the petitioner herein, a First Information Report was
also registered in Crime No.60 of 2007. The Trial went before the Judicial
Magistrate at Palladam in CC No.146 of 2009 and by judgment dated
04.01.2014, the petitioner was convicted of the offence. Thereafter, the
petitioner has filed an appeal before the Principal Sessions Court, Tiruppur,
which ended in acquittal in the year 2016.
11. Naturally when a criminal case was pending, even though parallelly
departmental proceedings can be proceeded with, it has always been held
prudent that the proceedings in the departmental proceeding are withheld till
the decision in the criminal case, either acquittal or conviction, has been
arrived at.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.26759 of 2018
12. The reason for that is to state that though the evidence produced
before the Criminal Court and the Departmental enquiry are one and the
same, the appreciation differs. Before the Criminal Court strict proof is
required if there is any gap in the evidence that is looked at with askance,
whereas before the Departmental proceedings, a reasonable presumption can
be drawn to link two different pieces of evidence.
13. In the instant case, the petitioner has suffered an order of conviction
in the year 2014. Thereafter, in appeal, the petitioner was acquitted of the
charges in the year 2016. Only thereafter, it was possible for the respondents
to pass orders on the enquiry report, which the respondents rightly did by
passing an order imposing punishment of stoppage of 3 increments with
cumulative effect, which is not challenged before this Court.
14. It is also to be noted, that if a punishment under Section 17b is
passed, then the name of the particular delinquent should not be considered
for promotion for a period of 5 years. Therefore, the petitioner's name could
not be included in the promotion panel for the year 2017-18.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner had been
permitted to retire upon attaining the age of superannuation. She further
submits that the petitioner has received the pensionary benefits after
adjustment of the amount as ordered in the punishment order. Let her rest
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.26759 of 2018
contented with that.
16. This Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Connected
Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.
10.08.2023
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral citation:Yes/No
sl
To
1. The Principal Secretary to Government,
Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme
Department, Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Commissioner,
Commissionerate of Social Welfare,
Panagal Building, Saidapet,
Chennai – 600 015.
3. Director Cum Mission Director,
Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS),
No.1, Pammal Nalla Thambai Street,
Taramani, Chennai – 600 113.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.26759 of 2018
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.
Sl
W.P.No.26759 of 2018
and WMP No.31109 of 2018
10.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
