IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11.01.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN W.P.No.46762 of 2006(T) (OA No.2381/2000) T.Ganapathy ... Petitioner versus The Collector Tirunelveli District ... 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.2381 of 2000 from the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal with a prayer to call for all the records in ROC.A6.98343/99 dated 05.01.2000 of the respondent and quash the same; consequently for directions to the respondent to issue orders relating to declaration of satisfactory completion of probation of this petitioner. - - - For Petitioner : Mr.A.L.Namasivayam For Respondent : Mr.S.Shiva Shanmugam Government Advocate O R D E R The Original Application in O.A.No.2381 of 2000 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal is the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant on 20.09.1967. He was promoted as Assistant in the year 1973. He was further promoted as Deputy Tahsildar on 01.07.1995. He worked as Special Deputy Tahsildar in the office of the Assistant Director (Mines), Tirunelveli from 28.08.1996 to 21.03.1997. While he was working as Special Deputy Tahsildar, a case in Crime No.2/97 of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, Tirunelveli was registered against him for having committed an offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Act, 1988 along with the Assistant Director of Mines. 3. The crux of the allegation was that in the year 1997, the Assistant Director of Mines demanded a bribe of Rs.500/- and the petitioner demanded bribe of Rs.200/- from one Mr.V.R.Elango, for issuing permit for transporting Jelly and stone from the quarry. Mr.V.R.Elango made a complaint to the Vigilance and Anti- Corruption Department and trap was laid and phenophthalein test conducted on both the hands of Assistant Director of Mines and the petitioner and the same proved as positive. Thereafter, arrest was made. The petitioner and the Assistant Director of Mines were released on bail, subsequently. 4. The petitioner was placed under suspension by respondent by an order dated 21.03.1997. The petitioner filed O.A.3898 of 1999 against the order of suspension. On 20.07.1999, the Tribunal quashed the suspension order and directed that as and when the Criminal proceedings ended in conviction against the petitioner, the respondent is at liberty to pass suitable order. Hence, the suspension was revoked and the petitioner was restored to service, by an order dated 28.07.1999. The respondent accorded sanction for the prosecution of the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. 5. Since there was dearth of hands in the cadre of Tahsildar in 1999, temporary promotions were effected from Deputy Tahsildars to the cadre of Tahsildar under Rule 39(a)(1) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules. Some of the juniors to the petitioner were temporarily promoted as Tahsildars. The petitioner was not considered for promotion as Tahsildar on temporary basis, since no order was passed regarding completion of probation in the cadre of Deputy Tahsildar for the petitioner. One of the requisite qualifications for promotion as Tahsildar is that one must have completed probation period of two years in the cadre of Deputy Tahsildar. While so, the Tahsildar, Sankarankoil in his letter dated 10.12.1999 sent proposal to the respondent for declaration of probation for the petitioner in the cadre of Deputy Tahsildar. The respondent passed the impugned order dated 05.01.2000 stating that probation of the petitioner would be declared only after the disposal of the case pending in C.No.2/97 referred to above. The present writ petition is to quash the aforesaid order of the respondent. 6. The respondent filed a reply affidavit refuting the allegations contained in the Original Application. The impugned order was passed as per Rule 27(b) of the Tamil Nadu State & Subordinate Service Rules. It is further stated that since his probation was not declared due to the pendency of the Criminal https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ case, he was neither considered for temporary promotion nor for inclusion in the regular panel for promotion to the post of Tahsildar. 7. Heard Mr.A.L.Namasivayam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Shiva Shanmugam, learned Government Advocate for the respondent. 8. Rule 27(b) of the Tamil Nadu State & Subordinate Service Rules, which is relevant to for the present case is extracted here-under:- "27(b)If the appointing authority decides that a probationer is suitable for such membership, it shall, as soon as possible, issue an order declaring the probationer to have satisfactorily completed his probation. If no such order is issued within six months from the date on which he is eligible for such declaration, the probationer shall be deemed to have satisfactorily completed his probation on the date of expiry of the prescribed or extended period of probation. A formal order declaring the completion of probation shall, however, be issued by the competent authority. In all cases in which serious charges are pending, and therefore, probation cannot be declared, an order to the effect that the question of declaration of probation cannot be considered till the charges are disposed of shall be issued by the component authority within six months from the due date for completion of probation and the final order on probation shall be passed as early as possible and in any case within one month after the disposal of the charges or six months after the due date for completion of probation, whichever is later." 9. The aforesaid rule makes it very clear that when serious charges are pending, the probation cannot be declared. When the respondent passed an order dated 05.01.2000, admittedly, the charge under Prevention of Corruption Act was pending. Therefore, it is no doubt true that the allegations are serious in nature. Hence, Rule 27(b) of the Tamil Nadu State & Subordinate Service Rules is attracted in the case of the petitioner and the respondent correctly invoked the same and correctly refused to declare probation pending the criminal charge. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 10. I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the respondent. Hence, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar r n s To The Collector Tirunelveli District +1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 2372 SJ(CO) km/28.1. W.P.No.46762 of 2006 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/