Madras High Court
P.Vasu vs The Additional Director General Of ... on 12 August, 2024
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan
WA(MD). No.1292 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Date : 12/08/2024
CORAM
The Hon`ble Mr.Justice C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
and
The Hon`ble Mr.Justice J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
WA(MD). No.1292 of 2018 and
WMP(MD) No.8346 of 2018
P.Vasu ... Appellant
Vs
1.The Additional Director General of Police &
Inspector General of Prison
Tamil Nadu, Chennai 600 008.
2.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Trichy 20 . ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
against the order dated 12.02.2018 in WP(MD) No.9910/2014
For Appellants : M/s.R.Murugappan
For Respondents : Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam
Government Advocate
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA(MD). No.1292 of 2018
JUDGMENT
The writ appeal has been filed questioning the order in WP(MD)
No.9910/2014 dated 12.02.2018 passed by the learned single Judge,
whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant herein was dismissed.
2. The appellant had filed the writ petition calling the records
relating to an order No.21895/EW2/2013-2 dated 18.10.2013 passed by
the first respondent, Additional Director General of Police and Inspector
General of Prisons, Tamil Nadu, Chennai and the consequential
intimation dated 18.11.2013 passed by the 2nd respondent, Superintendent
of Prisons, Central Prison, Trichy and to quash both the orders and direct
the respondents to give promotion to the petitioner as Grade I Warder for
the year 2013-14 from November 2013 onwards.
3. The appellant had originally joined as Grade II Warder in the
respondent's prison department on 15.04.2002. He would be eligible to
be promoted as Grade I Warder after completing 12 years of service.
This would indicate that he would be eligible to be considered for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
promotion as Grade I Warder on and from 2014. The promotion list,
which is in effect from November of every year, is prepared on 15 th of
July of that particular year. One of the condition is that as on 15th July,
the individual, who is considered for promotion, should not have come to
the adverse notice of the respondents and should not have been imposed
with any punishment either minor or major. Unfortunately for the
appellant, the appellant had come to the adverse notice of the
respondents, since it is alleged that he had permitted some released
prisoners to be with him in his official residence. As a fact, this
allegation was held to be proved after show cause notice was issued and
after his explanation was considered. Taking into consideration the
various factors, an order of censure was passed by the first respondent on
19.10.2012 in Order No.5857/Fo.1/2012. This order had not been
challenged by the petitioner. He had consented to the said order and the
said order has been put into effect.
4. Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules, 1959 relates to penalties. It had been stated that for good
and sufficient reasons, ,penalties which had been enumerated in the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rule, could be imposed upon every person, who is a member of the civil
service of the State and every person holding the civil post under the
State. Among other penalties, censure is one such penalty. Censure is
normally termed as a minor penalty, however, it would be in operation
for a period of one year.
5. In Schedule XI, which deals with procedure for preparation of
approved list for promotions, in Sub Rule 11, it had had been stated that
if a punishment of censure had been imposed within a period of one year
prior to the crucial date, it shall be held against the member of the service
and his name shall not be considered for inclusion in the approved list.
The said Rule 11 is extracted below for better understanding:
“(11) Any punishment (other than ‘Censure’)
imposed on a member of service within a period of five
years prior to the crucial date and a punishment of
‘Censure’ imposed within a period of one year prior to
the crucial date shall be held against the member of
service and his name shall not be considered for
inclusion in the approved list. Any punishment, including
‘Censure’ imposed on a member of service after the
crucial date, but before actual promotion or appointment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
shall be held against the member of service and he shall
not be given promotion or appointment.”
6. In the instant case, the punishment of censure had been passed
against the petitioner by an order dated 19.10.2012. In the year 2013-14,
he was eligible for promotion to Grade I Warder. But the approved list
would be prepared on 15.07.2013. On that particular date, the
punishment was in force. Naturally, his name was held over, but, we are
informed that he had been considered for promotion in the panel 2014-15
and had actually been granted promotion as Grade I Warder. It has also
been informed to us that in the year 2020, he had also been subsequently
promoted as Chief Head Warder. The next promotional post is Assistant
Jailer.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant stated that the reason
granted for imposing the punishment of censure was not proper and that
the relatives of the appellant had stayed in his quarters owing to the fact
that his marriage was fixed. But, unfortunately, we cannot travel on
those facts since the petitioner had not challenged the punishment in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
manner known to law and it had attained finality. He had subsequently
been granted promotion to Grade I Warder in the subsequent year and
Chief Head Warder in the year 2020. He had therefore abided by the
terms of appointment and promotion in the said department, where he is
working. The learned Judge had also observed that the promotion list
would be drawn on 15th July of every year and on the said date, the
appellant had not completed one year from the date on which censure
was awarded against him. We find no reason to find fault with the
observation of the learned single Judge.
8. In the counter filed on behalf of the respondents, it had been
stated that under G.O.Ms.No.248 Prison and Administrative Reforms
Department dated 20.10.1997 and subsequent amendment issued to
General Rule 4(a) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service vide
G.O.Ms.No.24, personnel and administrative reforms department dated
24.02.2014, the punishment of censure imposed on a Government servant
within a period of one year prior to the crucial date shall be held against
the member of the service, his name shall not be considered for inclusion
in the approved list. In the instant case, the date of punishment was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
19.10.2012 and the crucial date is 15th July of every year and therefore as
on 15.07.2013, the appellant had not completed one year from the date of
imposing the punishment of censure.
9. It had also been held that the punishment of censure shall be
valid for a period of one year from 19.10.2012 till 18.10.2013 which was
forwarded by the Superintendent of Prison, Borstal School at Pudukottai
to the appellant. Therefore, on 15.07.2013, the punishment was still in
force.
10. In view of the same, the writ appeal stands dismissed. We
would only like to observe that if the appellant is entitled for any further
promotion, if there are no supervening circumstances and if he is
otherwise eligible, the said opportunity should not be denied to the
appellant. No costs.
(C.V.K.,J.) (J.S.N.P,,J.)
12.08.2024
RR
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TO
1.The Director of Elementary Education
College Road, Chennai 600 006.
2.The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Madurai, Madurai District
3.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,
Thirumangalam
Madurai District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
and
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
RR
12.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
