IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 22..4..2008 Coram: The Honourable Mr.Justice P.K. MISRA and The Honourable Mr.Justice K.CHANDRU W. P. No. 10798 of 2003 and W.P.M.P. No. 13624 of 2003 M.P. Govindaswamy ... Petitioner -vs- 1. The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Secretary Rural Development and Local Administration Department Fort St. George Chennai 2. The Director of Municipal Administration Chepauk Chennai 3. The Commissioner Gobichettipalayam Municipality Gobi ... Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus by calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 27.12.2002 passed in T.A. No. 183 of 1992 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras, quash the same and to direct the third respondent to give effect to the second respondent's order in his proceedings No. 108965/81 J1 dated 10.12.1982. For Petitioners : Ms. Meenal for Mr. R. Subramanian For Respondents 2&3 : Mr. M. Dhandapani, Spl. GP https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ORDER K. CHANDRU, J. Heard the arguments of Ms. Meenal, learned counsel representing Mr. R. Subramanian appearing for the petitioners and Mr. M. Dhandapani, learned Special Government Pleader representing the respondents and have perused the records. 2. The writ petition is filed against the order dated 27.12.2002 passed by the Tribunal in T.A. No.183 of 1992 and for a further direction to direct the third respondent Commissioner, Gobichettipalayam Municipality to give effect to the order of the second respondent dated 10.12.1982. 3. The petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P. No. 6043 of 1984 seeking to challenge the order of the first respondent made in G.O. Ms. No. 700 Rural Development and Local Administration Department dated 07.5.1984. After the formation of the Tribunal, the said writ petition was transferred to the Tribunal and was re-numbered as T.A. No.183 of 1992. 4. When the said petition was taken up in the year 2002 for final disposal, already 18 years had lapsed and, therefore, the Tribunal held that since the petitioner was 50 years old at the time of filing of the petition, he must have suffered the punishment and must have retired from service long back. In that view of the matter, the T.A. was dismissed. It is as against the same, the present writ petition has been filed. It was rather unfortunate that the Tribunal should have given a disposal of this nature without looking into the contentions raised by the parties. 5. It is seen from the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent before the Tribunal that the petitioner was working as a Bill collector and he had involved in several misconducts. In one case, a punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect was imposed on him and in the second case, he was reverted as an Attender with the minimum scale of pay and on the petitioner filing an appeal before the Regional Director, Salem, the punishment of stoppage of one increment was set aside. He also recorded that the petitioner cannot be reverted to the post of Record Clerk as he had never held that post and on the basis of Fundamental Rule 15 and by cancelling the said order, he was directed to be imposed with some other punishment. 6. Since the Commissioner could not revise his own order, a letter was addressed to the second respondent so that the second respondent can pass the order. However, the Government, by G.O. Ms. No. 700 Rural Development and Local Administration Department https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ dated 07.8.1984, on a suo motu revision provided under Rules 20 and 25 of the Tamil Nadu Municipal Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, upheld the original order of punishment reverting the petitioner to the post of Record Clerk. 7. This is not a case of reversion granted for want of vacancy but it is a case of reduction to a lower post in terms of the Service Rules. The question that a person cannot be reverted to a post which he never held before, will not apply when a specific punishment of reduction in lower rank is passed against him as provided under the Rules. In the present case, the petitioner could have been dismissed for the act of misappropriation and the third respondent, by showing leniency, had imposed a lesser punishment of reduction to a lower post. 8. Such an order cannot be challenged on a technical basis. So long as the Service Rules provide for punishment of reduction to lower rank, the same can be imposed by the authorities. Hence, the present writ petition challenging the punishment order passed by the first respondent State, is misconceived even though the Tribunal was wrong in dismissing the O.A. filed by the petitioner on untenable grounds. As the said Original Application cannot be remitted for fresh disposal since the Tribunal itself has been abolished, this Court heard the matter on merits. 9. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. gri To 1. The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu Rural Development and Local Administration Department Fort St. George, Chennai. 2. The Director of Municipal Administration Cheapuk, Chennai. 3. The Commissioner, Gobichettipalayam Municipality Gobi. Order in W. P. No. 10798 of 2003 BV(CO) JJM(29/04/08) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/