Case Title: K. Sivanandam Vs The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Case No: W.P.(MD). No.18344 of 2021 and WMP(MD). No.15152 of 2021
Decided on: 13th December, 2023
CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. VIJAYAKUMAR
Facts of the Case
On December 16, 2005, a charge document was presented to the petitioner who had worked as a Block Development Officer. A charge-investigator was designated to look into the allegations. The January 6, 2007, enquiry report declared that the petitioner was not guilty of the same. In 2005–2006, the petitioner’s name was absent from the Assistant Director of Panchayat panel. The petitioner persuaded the first respondent to add his name to the panel by making representations.
The petitioner’s name was left off the panel even though he was qualified for advancement to the position of Assistant Director (Panchayat) in the 2005–2006 fiscal year. On March 12, 2020, the petitioner filed a representation in response, requesting promotion. Nevertheless, an order dated September 13, 2021 denied the representation. The primary basis for the denial was the claim that, subsequent to the charges being withdrawn on January 6, 2007, the petitioner received a second charge memo on August 23, 2007, and the final orders pertaining to this second charge memo were not passed until July 30, 2017.
After superannuating on May 31, 2012, the petitioner argues that he should be listed on the panel for 2005–2006 and challenges the rejection of his representation through the present writ petition.
Issues
If an employee’s name is postponed due to outstanding charges, but those charges are later dropped, is it still possible for the person to be promoted for the relevant panel year even while the second charge memo is still pending?
Courts analysis and decision
The court ruled that it is obvious that an employee would regain his lost chance of advancement on par with his juniors once the accusations are withdrawn, given the rulings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The issuance of a second charge letter does not legally prevent the petitioner’s name from being considered for promotion during a given panel year. In this instance, the petitioner’s name should have been on the panel for the year 2005–2006 even though the charges were withdrawn on January 6, 2007. The deadline for adding his name to the panel for the 2005–2006 year is April 1, 2006. The second charging memo was only released on August 23, 2007. As a result, the second charge memo cannot be used as justification for leaving the petitioner’s name off of the panel for the 2005–2006 year.
The court reversed the order contested in the writ petition and the respondents are required to appoint the petitioner as Assistant Director of Panchayat, effective from the date of the promotion of his juniors, and to bestow upon him all attendant financial and non-financial benefits within a fortnight of receiving a copy of this order.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Rupika Goundla
