IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 15.07.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. Justice T.RAJA W.P.No. 45187 of 2006 P.Periyasamy ... Petitioner -vs- The Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Karur. ... 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.1871 of 2000 from the file of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, to call for the records on the file of the respondent in connection with the order passed by him in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.F1.Tha.Pa.3/99, dated 30.06.1999 and in No.S.O.84/99 P.R.3/99/U/r 3(b), dated 01.07.1999 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Singaravelan for Mr.K.Sannjay For Respondent : Mr.S.Gopinathan, Additional Government Pleader O R D E R On abolition of the Tribunal, the Original Application in O.A.No.1871 of 2000 filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal stood transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No. 45187 of 2006. 2.The petitioner was appointed as Grade II Police Constable on 12.05.1976 and he was promoted to the post of Constable Grade I in the year 1993-1994. After completion of five years of service in Grade I Police Constable, he should have been upgraded to the post of Head Constable. While the petitioner was serving, a charge memo was issued by the respondent. After receiving the said charge memo, the petitioner submitted his explanation stating that the petitioner has not denied the charges leveled against him and specifically mentioned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that the immovable property in respect of Mortgage Deed as executed by the family members along with the petitioner does not fall under Rule 7 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Particularly, in his explanation he stated that if the immovable property in question is not acquired from the resources of the Government Service concerned, the Government Servant is not required to give notice to the prescribed authority or seek prior permission from the prescribed authority for acquisition or disposal of immovable properties by the members of his family under Class (a). The disciplinary authority having not satisfied with the above said explanation proceeded against the petitioner and finally found him guilty of the above said charge. As a result, the disciplinary authority imposed with the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect against the petitioner by order dated 30.06.1999. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner by challenging the above said impugned punishment brings to the notice of this Court, Rule 7 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, to say that his case is covered by explanation given under Rule 7. He further submitted that the petitioner entered into a Mortgage Deed in respect of an immovable property belonging to the deceased father and such a Mortgage Deed can never be brought under the purview of Rule 7 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct (Discipline and Appeal) Rules as the explanation given under Rule 7 has perfectly excluded the transaction of the Mortgage Deed which again clearly indicates that the immovable property is not acquired from the resources of the Government service and on that basis prayed for setting aside the impugned punishment. In his further submission, he stated that in view of the above punishment the petitioner has also suffered promotional avenues. Therefore, the petitioner has filed O.A.No.7879 of 1999. This Court by order dated 25.02.2010 directed the petitioner to give a representation to the respondent. As such the petitioner has also given a representation following the order passed by this Court. But till date, the representation given by the petitioner has not been disposed of. Therefore, in view of the matter, the petitioner has put into great prejudice as he is not allowed to enjoy the promotional avenues. 4.The counter has not been filed by the respondent. On the other hand, though the learned Additional Government Pleader argued, he was not able to go to support the impugned order and also not in a position to get over the explanation given under Rule 7 of the Tamil Nadu Government Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules. 5. Rule 7 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct (Discipline and Appeal) Rules is extracted as under:- "(1)(a)No Government servant shall, except after notice to the prescribed authority, acquire or dispose of any immovable property by lease, mortgage, purchase, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ sale, gift, exchange or otherwise either in his own name or in the name of any member his family. Such a notice will be necessary even where any immovable property is acquired by any member of the family of the Government Servant out of the resources of the Government servant:- Provided that the previous sanction of the prescribed authority shall be obtained if any such transaction is with a person having official dealings with the Government servant: Provided further that the previous sanction of the prescribed authority shall not be necessary for the acquisition of immovable property in respect of house- site assigned by the Government to the Government Servant. Explanation: A government Servant is not required to give notice to the prescribed authority or seek prior permission from the prescribed authority for acquisition or disposal of immovable properties by the members of his family under Class (a), if the immovable property in question is not acquired from the resources of the Government Service concerned." A plain reading of Rule 7 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct (Discipline and Appeal) Rules along with explanation given under Rule 7 clearly covers the case of the petitioner that the petitioner being a government servant, is not required to give notice to the prescribed authority seeking prior permission from the prescribed authority for acquisition or disposal of immovable properties by the members of his family under Class(a), if the impugned property in question is not acquired from the sources of the Government servant concerned. Admittedly, the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner entered into a Mortgage Deed along with his family members in respect of immovable ancestral property of the petitioner's family. This has not been denied or distinguished by the disciplinary authority. In the present case, the petitioner entered into a Mortgage Deed in respect of an immovable property. Out of the said mortgage, an amount of Rs.40,000/- was received only to save the life of his father, who was undergoing treatment. When such transaction is relating to private dispute, the petitioner cannot be departmentally proceeded with, in view of the explanation given under Rule 7(a) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Therefore, the punishment imposed against the petitioner is being totally contrary to Rule 7(a) of the Tamil Nadu Government Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules, this Court has no other options except to interfere with the punishment imposed by the respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Accordingly, the said punishment is set aside by allowing the writ petition without any order as to costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar mps To The Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Karur. 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.51383. 1 cc To Mr.R.Singgaravelan, Advocate, SR.51171. W.P.No. 45187 of 2006 TS(CO) RVL 14.10.2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/