1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.(MD)No.14595 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 G.Muniraju ... Petitioner Vs 1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Home(Transport) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 2. The Principal Secretary/Transport Commissioner, Chepauk, Chennai-5. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the second respondent passed in Memo R.No.40610/VA2/2008, dated 23.10.2008 and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to consider the promotion of the petitioner as Deputy Transport Commissioner on par with his junior and also consequently promoting the petitioner as Deputy Transport Commissioner in the ensuing panel for the year 2011-2012 with all monetary and attendant benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.Veerakathiravan For Respondents : Mr.TR.Janarthanam Additional Government Pleader O R D E R This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the second respondent passed in Memo R.No.40610/VA2/2008, dated 23.10.2008 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to consider the promotion of the petitioner as Deputy Transport Commissioner on par with his junior and also further promote the petitioner as Deputy Transport Commissioner in the ensuing panel for the year 2011-2012 with all monetary and attendant benefits. 2. Heard Mr.Veerakathiravan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.TR.Janarthanam, learned Additional Government Pleader, who takes notice for the respondents. 3. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 4. The petitioner has come to this Court challenging the charge memo 23.10.2008 issued by the second respondent/Principal Secretary/Transport Commissioner, Chennai with further direction to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 direct the respondents to consider the promotion of the petitioner on par with his juniors and further to promote him to the post of Deputy Transport Commissioner in ensuing panel for the year 2011-2012. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that while the petitioner was serving as Regional Transport Officer, Madurai North, he was issued with the charge memo dated 23.10.2008 with four counts of charges initiated under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal). The charges are given as under: "Charge I: Thiru G.Muniraju, Regional Transport Officer has failed to ensure that the Government money amounting to Rs.7,69,413/-(Rupees Seven Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand Four Hundred and Thirteen only) collected in the office on 04.07.2008 towards motor vehicles taxes and fees was properly handed over by the cashiers to the Accountant following the procedures prescribed for handling the Government money, that the money was duly accounted for in the daily cash book and that the cash book was closed for the day. He has also failed to ensure that Thiru V.Thamarakki, Night Watchman had performed the duties entrusted to him on 04.07.2008 and 05.07.2008 in safeguarding the Government money. Charge II: Thiru G.Muniraju, Regional Transport Officer, Madurai (North) has failed to ensure that the Government money collected in the office on 04.07.2008 was kept in the cash chest in a safe manner. Charge III: Thiru G.Muniraju, Regional Transport Officer, Madurai(North) has failed to exercise a specially strict and close control over his subordinates in regard to the handling of Government money, maintenance of proper accounts and safety of the money. His lack in supervision in this regard, has resulted in loss of the Government money amounting to Rs.7,69,413/-(Rupees Seven Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand Four Hundred and Thirteen only). Charge IV: Thiru G.Muniraju, Regional Transport Officer, Madurai(North) has not followed the circular instructions issued by the Transport Commissioner in R.No.19233/P3/2002, dated 29.04.2002 in which detailed guidelines have been issued to safeguard the Government money. 6. Immediately after the receipt of the said charge memo, the petitioner submitted his explanation. The Disciplinary Authority has also appointed an Enquiry Officer. On completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has also submitted his report holding that the first three charges found not true. However, in respect of the fourth charge, the report of the Enquiry Officer held that the fourth charge alone was found proved. In spite of the fact that the report of the Enquiry Officer has also been submitted on 09.12.2010, the Disciplinary Authority, even after the completion of one year, has not passed any final order. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has not been considered for promotion. On that basis, the petitioner has come to this Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 7. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when the petitioner was issued with charge memo containing four charges and when the Enquiry Officer has found him not guilty in respect of first three charges, automatically the fourth charge should have been held in his favour. However, it is for the Disciplinary Authority to pass appropriate order. In the meanwhile since the petitioner's promotional consideration is on par with his juniors, he has asked for quashing all the entire charge memos. 8. For a moment, though the submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner found carrying some substance, as the entire exercise has been completed on the filing of the report by the Enquiry Officer by 09.12.2010, the learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that the Disciplinary Authority, who is now considering the case of the petitioner should be given liberty to pass appropriate order on report filed by the Enquiry Officer. 9. Under these circumstances, taking note of the fact that the Enquiry Officer had already submitted his report on 09.12.2010 and in the meanwhile, the petitioner has also lost the benefit of including his name in the promotional post, this Court directs the first respondent to pass appropriate order on its own merits and in accordance with law, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (T&P) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Home(Transport) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 2. The Principal Secretary/Transport Commissioner, Chepauk, Chennai-5. + 1 cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR No.42339 + 1 cc to Mr.Veera Kathiravan, Advocate, SR No.44962 W.P.(MD)No.14595 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 21.12.2011 ssl RJ/10.2.12 3p/5c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/