IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 11-06-2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.16109 of 2006 (O.A.No.5403 of 1995) Meivazhi Singara Ananthar .. Petitioner Versus 1.Secretary to Government Agriculture Department, Fort St. George, Madras-9. 2.Chief Engineer, Agricultural Engineering, Nandanam, Madras-35. 3.Executive Engineer, Command Area Development Programme, Mayiladuthurai. .. Respondents. Prayer: This petition has been filed seeking for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the punishment of stoppage of increment for three years without cumulative effect passed by the second respondent herein in his No.OE.1/112426/90, dated 31.3.93, and further confirmed by the first respondent herein in his G.O.(3D) No.76, dated 30.5.95, with all consequential benefits. For Petitioner : Ms.Sudha Ravi For Respondents : Mr.B.K.Girish Neelakantan Government Advocate O R D E R This petition has been filed by the petitioner, praying that this Court may be pleased to quash the punishment of stoppage of increment for three years without cumulative effect and to pass other appropriate orders. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. It has been stated that the petitioner had joined the Government service as a Junior Engineer, on 3.12.64, in the Agricultural Department. He had been promoted as an Assistant Executive Engineer, on 28.6.86. The petitioner was served with an order of punishment, dated 31.3.93, passed by the second respondent, imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment in the time scale of pay for three years without cumulative effect, based on the charge memo dated 22.3.90, alleging that the petitioner had committed certain irregularities in performance of his duties. The petitioner had preferred an appeal against the said order to the Government, on 19.6.93. By an order, dated 30.5.95, made in G.O.(3D) No.76, the appeal had been rejected, confirming the order of the second respondent, dated 31.3.93. 3. Even though various grounds have been raised by the petitioner to show that the impugned order of punishment is illegal and contrary to the principles of natural justice, the main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the appeal filed by the petitioner, on 19.6.93, had been disposed of based only on the recommendations of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, without arriving at his conclusions by applying his mind, and without analysing the charges against the petitioner before arriving at an independent conclusion. Further, the impugned order, dated 30.5.1995, made in the appeal, has been passed without giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case against the charges levelled against him. 4. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents the allegations made by the petitioner have been denied. It has been stated that the punishment was imposed on the petitioner for his collusion with the Junior Engineer for misusing the materials belonging to the Government and for his failure to discharge his legitimate duties as a Controlling Officer. It has also been stated that there is no violation of the principles of natural justice as alleged by the petitioner. The action had been initiated against the petitioner under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Since the allegations against the petitioner were proved, the punishment of stoppage of increment for three years without cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner. Further, the appeal filed by the petitioner has been disposed of by the Appellate Authority, on merits, based on the recommendations made by the Tamilnadu Public Service Commission and on considering the merits of the case, in accordance with law. 5. Based on the contentions of the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the respondents. It is found that sufficient reasons have been shown for the respondents to arrive at their conclusions. The petitioner on the other hand had not given sufficient explanation to absolve him of the charges levelled against him. The Appellate Authority has confirmed the order passed by the second respondent against the petitioner, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for three years without cumulative effect. From the impugned orders, it is clear that there are sufficient grounds for their decision to impose the punishment on the petitioner. Further, since sufficient opportunity has been given to the petitioner, it cannot be said that the impugned orders have been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. In such circumstances, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar csh To 1.Secretary to Government Agriculture Department, Fort St. George, Madras-9. 2.Chief Engineer, Agricultural Engineering, Nandanam, Madras-35. 3.Executive Engineer, Command Area Development Programme, Mayiladuthurai. 1 cc To Mr.S.Ravi, Advocate, SR.28510. 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.28763. Writ Petition No.16109 of 2006 MS(CO) RVL 27.06.2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/