IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Date:- 18.03.2008 Coram The Honourable Mr. Justice F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA and The Honourable Mr. Justice K. CHANDRU W.P. No.2698 of 2004 and M.P. No.3112 of 2004 1. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Secretary to Government Finance (L.F.) Department Fort St. George Chennai-600 009. 2. The Chief Internal Auditor and Chief Auditor of Statutory Boards 807, Annai Salai, Chengalvarayan Buildings 7th Floor, Chennai-2. 3. The Director Local Fund Audit Department Kularagam, IV Floor Chennai-108. ...Petitioners ..vs.. 1. V. Thammannan 2. The Registrar The Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal Chennai-104. ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining tot he order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the second respondent herein dated 4.4.2003 in O.A.No.8920 of 1997 and quash the same. For Petitioners : Mrs.Geetha Thamaraiselvan, GA For Respondent No.1 : Mr.A.Duraivellaiappan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J) The State and the department of Local Fund Audit had come forward with this writ petition challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 4.4.2002 passed in O.A.No.8920 of 1997. The issue relates to the promotion of the first respondent from the post of Inspector of Internal Audit to that of Assistant Director of Local Fund Audit. The first respondent's name was not included in the panel for promotion to the post of Assistant Director of Local Fund Audit for the year 1998-99 on the ground that he suffered a punishment by order dated 21.2.1995 and that the said punishment was within the check period of five years. Reliance was placed upon para 4-II of the Government letter No.248 P &AR dated 20.10.1997. The punishment imposed on the first respondent was six months increment cut with cumulative effect. As a matter of fact the said punishment was implemented with effect from 1.9.1995 and the punishment was actually suffered by the first respondent for the next six months ending with March, 1996. 2. Therefore the question for consideration is whether the punishment was current on the crucial date. In this context it will be worth while to refer to the amended para 4-II (3) which has been set out in the letter of the first petitioner dated 10.6.1998. The said para reads as follows:- "The punishment of censure has no currency. Whenever an officer is undergoing any punishment, other than censure, on the crucial date or on the date of consideration, then irrespective of the time of occurrence of the irregularity, his name should be passed over for the panel. If the currency of punishment continues at the time of subsequent consideration for the next panel(s), he should still be passed over on the ground that an officer should not be considered for promotion or promoted during the currency of any punishment. After the completion of its currency, no punishment should be held, once again, against an official even it falls within the check https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ period of any panel, if it has already been held against the official on any earlier occasion." (the underlining is ours). 3. In this case, the crucial date was noted as 1.9.1998 when the matter was dealt with before the Tribunal. In fact the Tribunal has mentioned the crucial date as 1.9.1998. However in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioners would contend that for the panel year 1998-99 the crucial date was 1.9.1997. Even assuming the crucial date was 1.9.1997, since the first respondent had undergone the punishment which came to an end by March, 1996, the punishment was not current as on the crucial date namely, 1.9.1997. The only other question would be whether the check period of five years would operate against the first respondent. Since para 4- II(3) was amended as per the communication of the first petitioner dated 10.6.1998, the last set of expressions contained in the amended para 4-II(3) makes it clear that if the currency of the punishment was not prevalent, such punishment should not be put against an official based on the principle of check period. Therefore even if the crucial date is taken as 1.9.1997, we are not able to find any illegality or irregularity in the order of the Tribunal in holding that the first respondent was fully eligible to be included in the panel of Inspectors for promotion to the post of Assistant Director of Local Fund Audit for the year 1998-99, according to the feeder category seniority. It is also stated that the first respondent's name was included in the panel of the subsequent year and he was also subsequently promoted as Assistant Director. 4. For all the above stated reasons, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, the connected WPMP is also closed. No costs. Tr/ Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The Secretary to Government State of Tamil Nadu Finance (L.F.) Department Fort St. George Chennai-600 009. 2. The Chief Internal Auditor and Chief Auditor of Statutory Boards 807, Annai Salai, Chengalvarayan Buildings 7th Floor, Chennai-2. 3. The Director Local Fund Audit Department Kularagam, IV Floor Chennai-108. + 1 cc to Mr. A. Durai Velliappan, SR No. 15380 + 1 cc to the Government Pleader, SR No.15540 W.P No.2698 of 2004 and connected W.P.M.P. RL(CO) SR/31.3.2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/