IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22.12.2006 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.20347 of 2005 N.Gopalakrishnan .. Petitioner vs. 1. The Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes (H-1) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. 2. The Inspector General of Registration, 120, Santhome High Road, Chennai 600 028 .. Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as stated therein. For petitioner : Mr.V.Raghavachari For respondents : Mr.C.Thirumaran Government Advocate O R D E R
The writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records on the file of the first respondent in proceedings No.G.O.(D) No.434, dated 28.10.2004, and quash the same as illegal, incompetent, without jurisdiction and unconstitutional.
The brief facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner, are as follows:
2. The petitioner was working as a District Registrar (Audit) at Tirupur. While so, a show cause notice was issued to him by the second respondent alleging that he has not carried out internal/quarterly audit for over a year and thereby, he had contravened Rule 20(1) of the Government Servants’ Conduct Rules. The show cause notice had been issued, on 29.4.2002. The petitioner had submitted his explanation immediately thereafter, through the Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Coimbatore, clearly stating that he had not committed any lapse on his part. Normally, a period of three months is available for completion of the audit work. Most of the audit work had been done within the time limit stipulated. However, the petitioner had explained to the Inspector General of Registration the reasons for the delay, which had occurred on a few occasions. He had also stated that the charges leveled against him were baseless and that there was no necessity for proceeding against the petitioner based on the charges. The second respondent had passed an order, dated 9.10.2002, stating that the quarterly audit was not done within the prescribed period and had come to the conclusion that the alleged charges against the petitioner were proved. Therefore, the petitioner had preferred an appeal to the first respondent, on 23.12.2002. The said appeal was rejected by the first respondent, on 28.10.2004, without taking into consideration the explanation offered by the petitioner. The first respondent had merely confirmed the order passed by the second respondent by a non-speaking order, based on the remarks obtained from the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. A punishment of ‘censure’ was passed against the petitioner. The petitioner has pointed out that there were several irregularities in the proceedings of the respondents stating that the initiation of the proceedings, under Rule 20 of the Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1972, is misconceived and the orders have been passed by the respondents without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner.
3. It has been further submitted that even though the minor penalties can be imposed only for a good and sufficient cause and that in the present case, such cause was not shown by the respondents, while imposing the punishment of ‘censure’ against the petitioner. The orders passed by the respondents are tainted, due to the administrative bias and it shows total non-application of mind on the part of the respondents. The punishment of ‘censure’ passed against the petitioner is motivated and malafide. The petitioner is due for promotion to the next higher post and the order of punishment passed against the petitioner has been issued only with the malafide motive of granting a benefit to a person placed below the petitioner in the senior list. Therefore, the petitioner has come before this Court by way of the present writ petition to quash the impugned proceedings of the respondents.
4. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that the petitioner was working as a District Registrar (Audit), Tirupur. As per Standing Order 1476 of the Tamil Nadu Registration Manual, all accounts of an office relating to a quarter should be audited without fail within the next quarter at the concerned Sub-Registry office by the audit staff. It was found that the petitioner had not carried out the quarterly audit for March 2001, June 2001, September 2001, December 2001 and March 2002 of Sulur Sub-Registrar office for over 1 year and thereby, offended Rule 20(1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1973. For the above mentioned lapses, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, in Inspector General of Registration’s proceedings No.21343/B3/02, dated 29.4.2002. The petitioner in his explanation, dated 29.7.2002, had denied the charges stating that he had completed the quarterly audit without delay. Though the petitioner has stated that there had been no lapse on his part, there was delay in completing the audit work. The chart hereunder would disclose the date on which he had to complete the audit work and the date on which he completed the audit work in respect of Sub-Registrar Office, Sulur:-
Sl.No Quarter Date by which Date of completion
the audit should
have been completed
1 March 2001 30.6.2001 29.8.2001
2 June 2001 30.9.2001 20.2.2002
3 September 2001 31.12.2001 18.3.2002
4 December 2001 31.3.2002 15.4.2002
5 March 2002 30.6.2002 24.4.2002
5. It has been stated that though the petitioner has stated that he had completed the quarterly audit well ahead of time of March, 2002, it is not true. The petitioner has completed the audit work belatedly except in the last item. In respect of March, 2001, there was a delay of about 2 months. For June, 2001, there was 5 months delay and for September, 2001, there was about 2 1/2 months delay. Although the petitioner has disclosed the reasons for the delay, the internal audit was not completed within the time limit, as per Standing Order 1476. The petitioner has failed to disclose the inconvenience caused in completing the audit work to the higher officials.
6. It has been further stated that the petitioner has not been found to have committed the delay in completion of the audit work allotted to him. He was awarded the minor punishment of ‘censure’. However, the petitioner was included in the panel of Assistant Inspector General of Registration in the year 1999-2000, vide G.O.Ms.No.252 Commercial Taxes Department, dated 3.12.1999. For want of vacancy, the petitioner could not be promoted.
7. However, at the stage of hearing of the writ petition, it has been submitted by the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner had never been passed over, while being considered for promotion and the punishment of ‘censure’ given to the petitioner had not effected him in any way. It has been further submitted that the petitioner is now working as the Assistant Inspector General of Registration and the next promotion would be to the post of Deputy Inspector General of Registration. Then the next promotion would be based only on seniority, subject to other conditions of eligibility. It has been further submitted that the punishment of ‘censure’ will not have any adverse effect on the petitioner’s promotion to the next higher post.
8. On such submissions being made, this Court finds that it is just and appropriate to dismiss the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
Commercial Taxes (H-1) Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Inspector General of Registration,
120, Santhome High Road,
Chennai 600 028
lan