IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 20.08.2010 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.NO.44072 OF 2006 (T) O.A.NO.3264 OF 2000 A. Kanniappan ... Petitioner Vs. The Director of Fisheries Teynampet, Chennai – 6. ... Respondent Prayer This Writ Petition came to be numbered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of transfer of O.A.No.3264 of 2000, from the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to include the name of the petitioner in the revised promotion of panel for the post of Sub- Inspector of Fisheries in the Panel in Rc.No.11/6039/93 dated 08.02.2000 and consequently, to promote the petitioner in the place above the next juniors to the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr. G.Thangavel For Respondent : Mr. S. Gopinathan Additional Government Pleader O R D E R The petitioner has filed an application in O.A.No.2653 of 2000 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal seeking for a direction to the respondent to include his name in the revised promotion of panel for the post of Sub-Inspector of Fisheries in the Panel in Rc.No.11/6039/93 dated 08.02.2000 and consequently to promote the petitioner in the place above the next juniors to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner, joined the Fisheries Subordinate Service Department on 22.08.1974 as Sub-Assistant, Inspector of Fisheries. After eight years of his unblemished service, on 16.06.1982, he was promoted as Fisheries Overseer at Mathuranthagam on deputation. After serving in various places, he was finally posted at Dharmapuri Keserigli Hallu Dam as Fisheries Overseer on 01.06.1999. Whileso, he made a representation to the Director of Fisheries in respect of his https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ promotion as Sub-Inspector of Fisheries on 22.04.1993, but the said representation was rejected by the respondent. As against that, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Government on 22.06.1993 and the same was rejected. After rejection of the same, the petitioner, finally sent a representation dated 22.07.1996 to the Government, as there was no response from the Secretary to Government Animal Husbandry and Fisheries, the petitioner filed an application in O.A.No.1558 of 1996 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and the Learned Tribunal, while considering the petitioner's prayer, by an order dated 01.08.1996, directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 22.01.1996 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of order. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was issued with a charge memo dated 08.08.1996, containing six charges under Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "Rule). Immediately, thereafter, the petitioner submitted his explanation and not being satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority, after holding an enquiry and on receipt of the findings of the Enquiry Officer, which held him guilty of the charges, the Disciplinary Authority finally, by an order dated 15.05.2000,has imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for six months without cumulative effect. 3. Heard both sides. No counter affidavit was filed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to reply as to whether the above said punishment of stoppage of his increment for six months without cumulative effect was further challenged before the Appellate Authority. 5. Be that as it may, the question to be decided is whether the petitioner is entitled to seek any direction before this Court to the respondent to include his name in the panel drawn on 08.02.2000, in spite of the imposition of the punishment of stoppage of his next yearly increment for six months without cumulative effect. It is relevant to refer the G.O.248 dated 20.10.1997 in para '4' of the G.O. which is extracted as follows:- "It is further clarified that the charges framed under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and any of the punishments awarded after the crucial date and till the date of issue of the panel, shall also be taken into consideration for assessing the suitability of the Officer for inclusion in the panel." By keeping in mind the question raised by the Learned counsel for the petitioner, a mere reading of para 4 of the above said Government Order would clearly answer the issue against the petitioner. It states that if any charge is framed under Rule 17 (b) of the said Rules, which has finally resulted in awarding the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ punishment after the crucial date of the issuance of the final order, the same shall be taken into consideration for assessing the suitability of the order for inclusion of his name in the panel. Admittedly, the petitioner is suffering punishment from 15.05.2000, though the crucial date was on 01.05.1993, but since the respondent has drawn up the panel only on 08.02.2000 for the vacancies arisen from the crucial date on 01.05.1993, in view of the punishment suffered by the petitioner on 15.05.2000, which is the result of proceedings initiated under the said Rule, the petitioner's prayer for inclusion of his name in the year 2000 panel dated 08.02.2001, cannot be considered. On that basis, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar sd To The Director of Fisheries Teynampet, Chennai – 6. 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.62001. W.P.No.44072 of 2006 NG(CO) RVL 06.12.2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/