IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17.11.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR Writ Petition No.609 of 2006 A.M.Mohan. ... Petitioner vs. 1.The District Collector, Perambalur District. 2.The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-5 ... Respondents Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for records of the respondents in connection with the impugned orders passed by the respondents 1 and 2 in Pa.Mu.A2/8579/2004 dated 5.2.2005 and Na.Ka.No.Pani.3(2)/34242/2005 dated 19.9.2005 respectively and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Venkatramani For Respondents : Mr.V.Manoharan, Government Advocate. O R D E R This Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for records of the respondents in connection with the impugned orders passed by the respondents 1 and 2 in Pa.Mu.A2/8579/2004 dated 5.2.2005 and Na.Ka.No.Pani.3(2)/34242/2005 dated 19.9.2005 respectively and quash the same. 2. Petitioner A.M.Mohan joined the services as direct recruit Junior Assistant in November, 1984. After series of promotion, he reached the position of Deputy Tahsildar on 4.6.2001. While he was working as a Deputy Tahsildar in the Taluk Office, Kunnam relating to electoral correction duty, he applied for medical leave from 1.3.2004 to 31.3.2004. He submitted a medical certificate along with his leave application. In his place another Deputy Tahsildar by name https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ T.Selvaraj, was posted. It is stated that the summary revision of electoral rolls was completed on 15.3.2004. Respondents directed the petitioner to appear before the Medical Board at Cuddalore and the Medical Board in its meeting held on 16.3.2004 certified that the petitioner was fit to join duty on 17.3.2004. The petitioner was called upon to undertake election work for the parliamentary election held in the year 2004. Without joining duty, he applied for Earned Leave from 16.3.2004 to 30.4.2004. The Earned Leave application was rejected by the first respondent and the petitioner was posted as Special Deputy Tashildar, General Election 2004 at Taluk Office, Jayamkondam in the proceedings of the first respondent Collector in Rc.A2/8579/2004 dated 22.3.2004 with a direction to the petitioner to join duty at once. The petitioner, however, did not join duty and failed to undertake election work and therefore, the first respondent District Collector placed the petitioner under suspension by order dated 6.4.2004. Charges were framed under Rule 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. An explanation was submitted to the charge memo. The Assistant Commissioner, Excise, Perambalur District was appointed as Enquiry Officer. On completion of enquiry, the enquiry officer held that the charges were proved and the matter was placed before the first respondent, who rejected the explanation of the petitioner. The first respondent District Collector by his proceedings dated 5.2.2005 in Pa.Mu.(A2)/ 8579/04 imposed a punishment of postponement of increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect and also treated the period of suspension from 6.4.2004 to 6.7.2004 as punishment. The appeal preferred by the petitioner to the second respondent was rejected by the second respondent. The second respondent, however, directed the first respondent District Collector to treat the suspension period as valid leave period. Aggrieved thereby, present writ petition is filed. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority as modified by the Appellate Authority is disproportionate to the delinquency charged. Learned counsel also contends that the petitioner has completed election duty prior to the taking of medical leave and on completion of the medical leave he appeared before the Medical Board. Though he was found to be fit to resume duty, due to chronic ailments and the serious nature of the medical complication, he had no other alternative except to apply earned leave. The Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority did not take into consideration the medical condition of the petitioner before coming to the conclusion that the delinquency was proved. In any event, it was submitted that even assuming the charges are proved, the punishment, viz., the postponement of increment by two years without cumulative effect is harsh and excessive and therefore it has to be interfered with by this court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. Learned Government Advocate referred to the counter- affidavit and the impugned order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as modified by the Appellate Authority and stated that the nature of duties and responsibilities of the petitioner at the time of election is onerous and highly responsible post. After the Medical Board issued the fitness certificate to joint duty, the petitioner has applied earned leave and further in spite of a specific direction issued by the Collector on 22.3.2004, the petitioner refused to join duty and therefore, the finding of the enquiry officer with regard to the charges levelled is justified and the quantum of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority as modified by the Appellate Authority is also reasonable and need not be interfered with by this court. 5. As regards the merits of the petitioner's case is concerned, the charge is relating to availing of earned leave after the Medical Board found that the petitioner was fit to joint duty on 17.3.2009 in the fitness certificate. Without joining duty, petitioner admittedly applied earned leave from 16.3.2004 to 30.4.2004 knowing fully well that he is in charge of the parliamentary election duty and he was already in the post of summary revision of electoral roll 2004. There is a specific order by the District Collector to rejoin duty after the petitioner was found fit by the Medical Board and that has been disobeyed. The petitioner was found to have violated the direction issued by his superior authority to report to duty at the time of election which is a paramount duty of the officer in a democratic State, particularly, during parliamentary elections. When the petitioner is found fit by the Medical Board and without any further acceptable reason or material, there is no justification for the petitioner to take earned leave by stating that he is having medical problem. The petitioner's approach is casual and does not show bona fides. 6. One other aspect which does not find favour with this court is that even at the time of filing his explanation or at the time of enquiry, no medical record to show his past illness of the kind now stated has been placed before the authority. The explanation given by the petitioner has not been accepted by the enquiry officer on merits. The disciplinary authority has also come to the conclusion that the explanation is not acceptable. The enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority have come to conclusion that there is a clear case of dereliction of duty by the petitioner to avoid election work. The appellate authority also confirms the same. There is no scope for this court to interfere as no illegality or infirmity is shown in the proceedings under challenge. 7. The Disciplinary Authority imposed a punishment of postponement of increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect and treated the period of suspension from 6.4.2004 to 6.7.2004 as punishment. The appeal preferred by the petitioner to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the second respondent was rejected by the second respondent. The second respondent, however, directed the first respondent District Collector to treat the suspension period as valid leave period. 8. The Disciplinary Authority for the proved charges has imposed a punishment as stated above and the appellate authority modified the same by granting certain benefits. This court finds no good reason to modify the punishment any further. There is no material to hold that the findings of the enquiry officer and the reasons of the disciplinary authority upholding delinquency and that of the appellate authority is perverse or bad. Further, this court does not find any just or reasonable cause to interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed as modified by the appellate authority. 9. Finding no merits, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar ts To 1.The District Collector, Perambalur District. 2.The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-5. + 1 cc to Mr.T.Ayngaraprabhu,Advocate,SR.62013 + 1 cc to Government Pleader,High Court, Madras,SR.61879 W.P.No.609 of 2006 NSM(CO) EM/30.11.09 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/