IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.12.2006
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN
WRIT PETITION No.15375 of 2005
P.Kannusamy ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. Member Secretary,
Sports Development Authority of Tamilnadu
Chennai - 600 084
2. The Chairman,
Executive Committee,
Sports Development Authority of Tamilnadu,
Chennai - 600 084. ...
Respondents
* * *
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.
* * *
For petitioner : M/s.G.Bala & Daisy
For respondents : Mr.P.Srinivas for R1
* * *
O R D E R
The Writ Petition has been filed praying for the
issuance of a Writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for
the records relating to the impugned order passed by the
respondent herein in his proceedings in Se.Mu.Order
No.17516/Ni.A.Pa.1/2002, dated 9.3.2005 and quash the same
and consequently direct the respondents to grant all service
and monetary benefits to the petitioner, with effect from
14.8.2003, within a time frame.
2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well
as for the respondents.
3.The brief facts of the case, leading to the filing of
the writ petition, are as follows:-
The petitioner had joined in the government service as
a Football Coach, on 17.08.1976, and he was promoted as the
District Sports Officer in the year 1986. The petitioner
was due for next promotion in the year 2003. On 11.07.2003,
he was served with a show cause notice alleging six
delinquencies against the petitioner for which disciplinary
action was to be initiated under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil
Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. On
24.07.2003, the petitioner had submitted his explanation.
However, the petitioner was placed under suspension from
14.08.2003, on the ground that an inquiry into grave charges
was contemplated. On 09.10.2003, the respondent had framed
the charges under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil
Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The charge memo
consisted of three counts of dereliction of duty. As per
the existing Government Orders the charge memo, under Rule
17(b), can be framed for grave allegations warranting a
severe punishment. However, in the case of the petitioner,
the allegations have been made only for the reason of
denying the petitioner’s legitimate claim for promotion.
4.It has been further stated that the first count of
charge relate to the alleged failure of the petitioner to
check the cash book and other registers and diaries
resulting in his subordinates making a complaint to the
District Collector. The second count of the charge is that
the petitioner had attended duty only for 74 days out of 275
working days from 25.02.2002 to 11.02.2003, and that he had
failed to be present, on 05.08.2003, when the Minister for
Sports and Youth Welfare had visited the office. During the
oral enquiry, both the counts were held to be false and not
proved. The third count of the charge against the
petitioner is for having failed to settle the accounts of
the summer coaching camp. During the enquiry, none of the
prosecution witnesses had deposed that the petitioner had
indulged in mal-practice or misappropriation of the
Government funds. Only third count of the charge was held
to be proved. Even though, the petitioner had submitted a
detailed explanation to the Disciplinary Authority,
requesting him to drop all the proceedings, the respondent,
on 09.03.2005, had imposed the major punishment of reduction
in rank to the post of Coach, for a period of three years.
The respondent had passed the impugned order, treating the
period of suspension as leave, which is in violation of the
provisions of the Fundamental Rules. As per the provisions
of Rule 17(b), a delinquent officer cannot be imposed with
more than one punishment for a misconduct. Whereas, in the
present case, the respondent had listed out as many as four
penalties, including treating the period of suspension as
leave, violating the statutory rules. The punishment in
reduction in rank is excessive, harsh and highly
disproportionate. The petitioner had maintained a clean
record of service for the past 29 years of his service.
5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
first respondent, it has been stated that the writ petition
is not maintainable for the reason that the petitioner has
an appellate remedy before the Executive Committee and the
petitioner has already filed an appeal which is pending
disposal. Without awaiting the decision on the appeal,
the petitioner has prematurely approached this Court. The
petitioner’s contention that the proceedings have been
initiated against him at the verge of his next promotion,
with a view to deny the petitioner’s legitimate claim for
promotion, is not correct. The disciplinary proceedings
have been initiated only after the receipt of petitions of
allegations against the petitioner from the staff of the
Sport Development Authority of Tamil Nadu, District Unit,
Kancheepuram, and forwarded by the District Collector.
6. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the
respondents, has pointed out that the appeal remedy is
provided under Rule 60 of the Service Rules for Employees of
Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu, 1998, which
reads as follows :-
“The Executive Committee or the Authority as the
case may be, shall be the Appellate Authority in
all service matters in which the Member Secretary
or the Executive committee respectively has been
designated as the Appointing Authority.”
7.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner had stated that the petitioner, during the
pendency of the writ petition, has submitted an appeal, on
20.09.2005, to the Appellate Authority, the second
respondent herein, which is still pending, as no orders have
been passed till date. The learned counsel for the
petitioner had stated that it would suffice, if the
Appellate Authority, the second respondent herein, is
directed to dispose of the appeal within a specified time
frame.
8.On such submission being made, the second respondent
is directed to dispose of the appeal filed by the
petitioner, on 20.09.2005, under Rule 60 of the Service
Rules for Employees of Sports Development Authority of Tamil
Nadu,1998, on merits and in accordance with law, within a
period of eight weeks from the date receipt of a copy of
this order.
With the above directions, the writ petition is
disposed of .
SSM
To
1. The Member Secretary,
Sports Development Authority of Tamilnadu
Chennai – 600 084
2. The Chairman,
Executive Committee,
Sports Development Authority of Tamilnadu,
Chennai – 600 084.