IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 25-06-2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.27634 of 2006 O.A.No.2874 of 1996 A.Ramaguptan .. Petitioner. Versus Inspector General of Prisons, Madras-2. .. Respondent. Prayer: This petition has been filed seeking for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to set aside the proceedings of the respondent in No.28926/AB4/89, dated 17.11.1995 in so far as it denies the salary for the period from 26.10.84 to 31.7.90 and the promotion fro the date of which his junior was promoted as Grade I Officer and direct the respondent to confer those benefits and the consequential benefits including revision of pension thereon. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Mani For Respondent : Mr.T.Sreenivasan Government Advocate O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent.
2. The petitioner has stated that while he was in service charges had been framed against him and he was placed under suspension, on 21.5.1983. Based on the disciplinary proceedings against him, he was imposed with the punishment of compulsory retirement, with effect from 26.10.1984. The punishment imposed on the petitioner was confirmed in the appeal filed by him. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.2402 of 1987 and the said writ petition was transferred to the Tamil Administrative Tribunal and re-numbered as T.A.No.1358 of 1989. Since the petitioner’s application had been dismissed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the petitioner had filed a review application in R.A.No.58 of 1990, which was allowed and the punishment of termination imposed on the petitioner was set aside and the respondent was directed to inflict the punishment of cutting of pension by Rs.10/- per month for a period of five years from the date of the petitioners retirement.
3. The petitioner has further stated that the charges leveled against the petitioner are frivolous and without any basis and none of the charges were with regard to the violation of any of the conduct rules applicable to the petitioner. The Government had issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.315, Home Department, dated 28.2.1995, accepting the judgment of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, made in R.A.No.58 of 1990. Accordingly, the petitioner was deemed to have retired from service from the date on which he had reached superannuation, i.e. 31.7.1990. Since the petitioner was removed from service, on 26.10.1984, and according to the order passed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.315, Home Department, dated 28.2.1995, he is deemed to have retired from service, on 31.7.1990. Since the punishment of compulsory retirement was set aside, the petitioner was deemed to have been in service and therefore, the petitioner ought to have been paid the salary due to him for the period from 26.10.1984 to 31.7.1990 and he ought to have been granted promotion to the post of Grade I Officer, from the date on which his junior Mr.Apparao was promoted.
4. In the reply affidavit filed by the respondent, the claims made by the petitioner have been denied. It has been stated that there were allegations to the effect that corrections were made in the quotations for the supply of dietary articles to the Central Prison, Cuddalore, for the month of May, 1983, and a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons. The preliminary enquiry had revealed that the petitioner and the other staff were responsible for the tampering of records with the connivance of outsiders. Considering the responsibility of the petitioner as the Office Manager and the gravity of the offence committed by him, he was placed under suspension and disciplinary action was taken against him, under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and the following charges were framed against him.
1) Gross neglect of duty in that he showed the Government records to a third party and allowed the other staff to do so in violation of rule 10 of the Tamil nadu Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1973 and Section 54(1) of the Prisons Act, 1894.
2) Having contact with Contractor, he got vegetables and took cool drinks along with them in violation of Rule 113 of the Tamil Nadu Prison Reformation Manual, Volume II and Act 54(1) of Prisons Act, 1894.
The first charge was proved beyond reasonable doubt and since a portion of the impugned order was also proved, the petitioner was awarded the punishment of compulsory retirement from service, with effect from 26.10.1984, in Proceedings No.27152/D3/83-1, dated 26.10.1984, passed by the Inspector General of Prisons. The appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.2292, Home (Pr.II) Department, dated 18.8.1986. The writ petition filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.2402 of 1987, which was transferred to the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and re-numbered as T.A.No.1358 of 1989 was dismissed. However, in the review application filed by the petitioner in R.A.No.58 of 1990, the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal by its order, dated 4.3.1993, modified its earlier order, stating that the order of punishment passed by the respondent is excessive in nature and it is not in proportion to the gravity of the offence. Therefore, it was ordered that the punishment of compulsory retirement passed by the Inspector General of Prisons in his Proceedings No.27152/D3/83-1, dated 26.10.1984, and confirmed by the Government in the appeal filed by the petitioner in G.O.Ms.No.2292, Home Department, dated 18.8.86, were set aside and the respondents were directed to inflict a cut of Rs.10/- per month from the petitioner’s pension for a period of five years from the date on which he is supposed to have retired. Accordingly, the Government had passed an order in G.O.Ms.No.315, Home Department, dated 28.2.1995, setting aside the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on the petitioner and awarding the lesser punishment, as directed by the Tamil Nadu administrative Tribunal, by its order, dated 4.3.1993, in R.A.No.58 of 1990. Since the petitioner had not been fully exonerated of the charges leveled against him, the Government in their letter No.76997, Pr.II/95-3, Home, dated 11.10.1995, had ordered to treat the period of suspension of the applicant from 26.10.1984 to 31.10.1970 as leave, to which he is eligible, other than un-earned Leave on Medical Certificate with reference to the provisions under FR.54-B(5) and FR.54B(7). The disciplinary action taken against the petitioner was under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and the punishment was awarded to the petitioner, observing all the formalities, as provided in the said Rules. Therefore, the claims made by the petitioner are devoid of merits and unsustainable in the eye of law.
5. Based on the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondent and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs prayed for in the present petition. The impugned order passed by the respondent has been issued pursuant to the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, dated 4.3.93, in R.A.No.58 of 1990. However, the petitioner has not been exonerated of the charges levelled against him. In such circumstances, the reliefs sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
csh
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home (Police III) Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort st. George, Madras-9..
2.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service,
Recruitment Board, Adyar, Madras-20.
3.The Director General of Police,
Government Estate,
Madras 2