1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 06.07.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.(MD).No.7457 of 2011 S.Mariappan ... Petitioner -Vs- 1. Agricultural Production Commissioner and Secretary to Government Government of Tamil Nadu Agricultural (AA6) Department Fort St. George Chennai - 9 2. The Chief Engineer (AE) Agricultural Engineering Department Nandanam Chennai - 35 3. The Assistant Executive Engineer (AE) Agricultural Engineering Department Collectorate Complex Virudhunagar Virudhunagar District ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent, the Chief Engineer, to dispose of petitioner's review dated 22.03.2010 by fixing a time limit. *** For Petitioner : Mr.A.Thirumurthy For Respondents : Mr. S.Chandrasekar Government Advocate O R D E R Seeking for a Mandamus directing the Chief Engineer (AE), Agricultural Engineering Department, Nandanam, Chennai - 35, to dispose of the petitioner's review petition, dated 22.03.2010, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition. 2. According to him, though the petitioner has submitted a detailed explanation on 19.09.2007 to the 17(a) charge memo initiated vide proceedings No. B/1973/07 dated 17.08.2007 by the Assistant Executive Engineer, (Agri. Engg), Virudhunagar, and that, he has also submitted a further explanation, dated 18.11.2009 through AEE (AE), https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 ADP, Viruthachalam Unit-I, the Chief Engineer (AE), Agricultural Engineering Department, Nandanam, Chennai - 35, the second respondent herein, has imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect stating that the petitioner has not submitted any explanation. It is further submitted that as the explanations stated supra have not been properly considered, the petitioner has been constrained to file a review petition to the second respondent, on 22.03.2010. In the above said circumstances, he has sought for a Mandamus as stated supra. 3. On the above pleadings, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the second respondent has a statutory duty to dispose of his review application. 4. Considering the limited relief sought for, Mr. S.Chandrasekar, learned Government Advocate, was put on notice and heard. 5. Admittedly, the punishment has been imposed by the Chief Engineer (AE), Agricultural Engineering Department, Nandanam, Chennai - 35, the second respondent herein. Part V of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules deals with the powers of the State Government / Head of the Department / Appellate Authority to review any order made under the said Rules. Proviso to the said Rule reads as follows: No power of revision shall be exercised by the head of the department, unless -- (i) the authority which made the order in appeal, or (ii) the authority to which an appeal would lie, where no appeal has been preferred, is subordinate to him. Rule 37 of the said rules read as follows:- The State Government may, at any time, either on their own motion or otherwise, review any order passed by them under these rules, when any new material or evidence which could not be produced or was not available at the time of passing the order under review and which has the effect of changing the nature of the case, has come, or has been brought, to their notice. Once the Head of the Department passes an order, he becomes a functioning Officer and as per the proviso stated supra, he can review only under hte following circumstances. (i) the authority which made the order in appeal, or (ii) the authority to which an appeal would lie, where no appeal has been preferred, is subordinate to him. 6. In such view of the matter, in the interest of justice, this Court deems it fit to direct the State Government, the first respondent herein to treat the review petition, dated 22.03.2010, submitted by the writ petitioner to the Chief Engineer (AE), Agricultural Engineering Department, Nandanam, Chennai - 35, the second respondent herein, as a review petition under Rule 37 of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and pass https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. The Chief Engineer (AE), Agricultural Engineering Department, Nandanam, Chennai - 35, the second respondent herein, shall forward the review petition, dated 22.03.2010, submitted to him, as expeditiously as possible so as to enable the first respondent to pass orders within the time frame. 8. With the above said direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. Agricultural Production Commissioner and Secretary to Government Government of Tamil Nadu Agricultural (AA6) Department Fort St. George Chennai - 9 2. The Chief Engineer (AE) Agricultural Engineering Department Nandanam, Chennai - 35 3. The Assistant Executive Engineer (AE) Agricultural Engineering Department Collectorate Complex, Virudhunagar Virudhunagar District +1cc to Mr.A.Thirumurthy, Advocate, Sr.No.21798 +1cc to the Special Govt.Pleader, Sr.No. 21985 vsg ssk/21.07.2011 /6c -3p/- W.P.(MD).No.7457 of 2011 06.07.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/