Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 309 (MAD)

R. M. Thiagarajan v. The Collector Sivagangai

2011-01-21

K.CHANDRU

body2011
JUDGMENT :- 1. The petitioner in W.P.No.45933 of 2006 was working as a Zonal Deputy Collector in the Taluk Office at Thiruppathur. He filed O.A.No.7574 of 2000 challenging the order of the respondent District Collector, Sivagangai, dated 16.8.2000, wherein and by which he was imposed with a penalty of stoppage of increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect. The said Original Application was admitted on 19.10.2000. Though the petitioner sought for an interim order, the Tribunal did not grant any interim order. On notice from the Tribunal, the respondent District Collector has filed a reply affidavit dated 27.2.2001. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.45933 of 2006. 2. The petitioner in W.P.45191 of 2006 was an Assistant working in the same office. By an identical order, he was also imposed with punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect for the very same incident for which the petitioner in W.P.45933 of 2006 was punished. In this case, the petitioner filed O.A.No.7601 of 2000, which was admitted on 18.10.2000. No interim order was passed. On notice from the Tribunal, the respondent has filed a reply affidavit dated 4.10.2001. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was re-numbered as W.P.No.45191 of 2006. Since there is an inter connectivity between the two Writ Petitions, they were heard together and a common order is passed. 3. It is seen from the records that the two petitioners went to the seat of one L.Pandian, who was a comparer in the office and asked him to furnish a copy of the District Revenue Officer's proceedings dated 5.4.1999. When the said Pandian informed them that he will compare the order and get the signature of the higher authorities in the fair copy, the two petitioners told him that he need not compare the order and he can simply hand over the copy to them, so saying they snatched the fair copy of the office order from the said Pandian, who was a comparer and Karuppiah put a seal in one fair copy and got the signature from Huzur Sarishtadar (Magisterial), Collectorate, Sivaganga. Angered with the conduct of the two individuals, the said Pandian made a complaint directly to the Personal Assistant to the Collector. Angered with the conduct of the two individuals, the said Pandian made a complaint directly to the Personal Assistant to the Collector. Acting upon the complaint, the two petitioners were given charge memo under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules dated 29.11.1999. 4. The charges related to snatching of the records and preventing the public servant from doing his duty and putting his own initial thereby obstructing the smooth functioning of the office. The petitioners denied the charges. But, however, the District Collector by the impugned orders dated 16.8.2000 found that the action of the two individuals in preventing the public servant from discharging his duties has been proved and the conduct of the two officers were unbecoming of a Government servant and the explanations offered by them were not acceptable. It is in that view of the matter, the annual increment for a period of one year was stopped without cumulative effect. 5. Assailing the same, the petitioners contended that the order of the District Collector was not based upon any material and no enquiry was conducted. The said Pandian gave the complaint directly to the Personal Assistant to the Collector, which was not proper. Moreover, the complaint was given out of Union rivalry. In the absence of there being a complaint from the Superintendent of the fair copy section and the complaint having been given after a few days at the instance of the rival association, thereby witnesses were not examined and since no enquiry was conducted, the punishment should be set aside. 6. In the reply affidavit, the District Collector had categorically stated that it is not the work of the Zonal Deputy Collector and the Assistant to go to the seat of another employee and then forcibly take the file from him, also put his initial in the fair copy and get the signature from Huzur Sarishtadar (Magisterial). Such a conduct cannot be accepted. 7. It is also seen that the petitioner did not file any appeal against the said penalty to the higher authorities, though statutory Rules permit an appeal to the Commissioner for Revenue Administration. On the other hand, in paragraph 6.C, the petitioners themselves stated as follows: "The explanations submitted by the applicant to the show cause notice and the charge memo are self explanatory. On the other hand, in paragraph 6.C, the petitioners themselves stated as follows: "The explanations submitted by the applicant to the show cause notice and the charge memo are self explanatory. The applicant had categorically explained that there was no misconduct at all and that it was an ordinary incident in which the fair copy which was compared by Mr.Pandian was taken with his permission to get the signature of the Office Manager in view of the urgency involved in the matter. Since the said document relate to the transfer of an official of the same Department, no personal gain or any corrupt motive is involved in this case. It is part of redressal of the grievance of the officials. Therefore, the punishment given to the applicant is harsh and excessive." 8. Therefore, it cannot be said that no such incident had taken place. By the very same assertion by the petitioners, the fact that they went to the seat of the another Government servant and without his permission, a document was taken away without the signature of the higher officials in that seat, itself is sufficient to prove the petitioners' conduct. In the present case, though the petitioners contend that the punishment is excessive, it is entirely a matter which the competent authority has to decide and this Court in such matters cannot interfere with the proportionality of the punishment when the punishment is stoppage of increment for one year. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the respondent. Hence, both the Writ Petitions stand dismissed. No costs.