IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 23.02.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR Writ Petition No.42386 of 2006(T) (OA No.7515/1999) S. Ramamurthy .. Petitioner vs 1.The Director of Industries and Commerce, Chepauk, Chennai. 2. The Secretary to Government, Small Industries (E.II.2) Dept., Fort St. George, Chennai.9. .. Respondents Prayer: Writ petition came to be re-numbered by transfer of O.A.No.7515 of 1999 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, praying to call for the records relating to the order of the 1st respondent dated 14.1.1996 issued in Proceedings No. 58369/EG4/92 and the order of the 2nd respondent dated G.O.(2D) No. 24 Small Industries (E.II.2) Dept. dated 4.6.1999 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.R. Muthukannu For Respondents : Mr.S. Sivashanmugam Govt.Advocate O R D E R This writ petition is filed to call for the records relating to the order of the 1st respondent dated 14.1.1996 issued in Proceedings No. 58369/EG4/92 and the order of the 2nd respondent dated G.O.(2D) No. 24 Small Industries (E.II.2) Dept. dated 4.6.1999 and quash the same. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The petitioner, while working as Special Officer in Periyakulam Anna Polythene Workers Industrial Co-operative Society, he was served with a charge memo dated 14.4.1990 stating that he has appropriated the society funds. After issuance of a charge memo, based on the enquiry and on proved charges, he was imposed with the punishment of stoppage of increment for six months with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the punishment imposed, the petitioner filed an appeal on 8.3.1996 and the same was rejected by the second respondent in G.O.Ms.No.2D No.24, dated 4.6.1999. Challenging the said G.O., the present original application has been filed. 3. At the time of final hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has remedy by way of review before the Government and the petitioner may be permitted to pursue the said remedy so as to redress the grievance if any. 4. Heard Thiru Sivashanmugam, learned Government Advocate. 5. The petitioner was 52 year old in the year 1999.He would have superannuated by now. The charge relates to misappropriation of funds. The disciplinary authority, based on the oral and documentary evidence let in, has confirmed the delinquency on merits and imposed the punishment as above, and is confirmed by the appellate authority. 6. As rightly pointed out by the Government Advocate, since the petitioner is contesting the matter on factual aspects of the dispute, the petitioner should be directed to go before the reviewing authority in terms of Rule 20 of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal ) Rules. Rule 20 reads as follows:- "20(1) A member of a State Service or a member of a Subordinate Service including a person who has ceased to be a member of such service in whose case the Government have passed original orders, shall be entitled to submit, within a period of two months from the date on which the order was communicated to him, a petition to the Government for review of the orders passed by them on any of the grounds specified below:- (a) that the order was not passed by the competent authority; (b) that a reasonable opportunity of defending himself was not given; (c) that the punishment is excessive or https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ unjust; (d) discovery of new matter or evidence which the appellant alleges and proves to the satisfaction of the government was not within his knowledge or could not be adduced by him before the order imposing the penalty was passed; (e) evident error or omission such as failure to apply the law of limitation or an error of procedure apparent on the fact of record; Provided that the Government may, in its discretion, condone any delay in submitting the petition for review within the said period of two months. (2) The petition for review which does not satisfy any of the above grounds shall be summarily rejected. *(3) Where an authority other than the State Government, by virtue of sub rule (2)of rule 12, has passed orders imposing a penalty on a member of the State Service, such member shall be entitled to appeal to the Head of Department, if the orders were passed by an authority subordinate to the Head of Department or to the Government, if the orders were passed by the Head of Department. *(vide G.O.Ms.No.19, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (N) Department, dated 11.02.2008, w.e.f. 11.02.2008)." 6. Considering the nature of plea raised and the scope of review, all the points raised in the writ petition can be urged before the reviewing authority in terms of Rule 20 as stated above. Since the original application has been filed in the year 1999 itself and the petitioner was pursuing the matter before this Court, the question of limitation can be eschewed and the petitioner as prayed for by his counsel is entitled to file the review within three months from the date of receipt of this order and such review application shall be heard and disposed of by the authority within a reasonable period of time. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ra To 1.The Director of Industries and Commerce, Chepauk, Chennai. 2. The Secretary to Government, Small Industries (E.II.2) Dept., Fort St. George, Chennai.9. +1cc to Government Pleader Sr 12217 RV(CO) km/18.3. WP No. 42386 of 2006 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/