The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the proceedings of the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No. 11289/2011/A1 dated 31.10.2012 and the order passed by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka. No. 867/2005.Peru-2 dated 28.4.2011 and consequently direct the respondents to settle his retirement benefits.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while the petitioner was working as a Junior Assistant in Pallipet Town Panchayat, he was placed under suspension on 14.12.1998. On 20.10.1999, the suspension was revoked and the petitioner was allowed to join duty. On 25.10.1999, the petitioner was imposed with a punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of 6 months without cumulative effect, against which the petitioner filed an appeal on 16.02.1999 and the same was pending. Due to the suspension imposed on the petitioner, without considering him, his juniors were promoted on 11.05.1999 as head clerk and subsequently as Executive Officer of Pallipet. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed O.A.No.6900 of 2001 before the Tribunal and obtained an order dated 12.02.2002 to consider the petitioner for temporary promotion.
3. Again, the petitioner was issued with a charge memo in Na.Ka.No.857/2005 on 26.01.2007, alleging that the petitioner had absented himself for more than six months violating Rule 18 of the Tamilnadu Civil Services (D&A) Rules. It is stated due to illness the petitioner did not participate in the enquiry proceedings and therefore the enquiry officer held the charges proved. The disciplinary authority passed an order of compulsory retirement with effect from 28.02.2005, vide his order in Na.Ka. No.867/2005 dated 28.04.2011. Against the same, the petitioner filed an appeal on 21.06.2011 and the same is pending, inspite of several reminders. In the meanwhile, the petitioner attained his age of superannuation on 30.06.2010. By order dated 31.10.2012, the Appellate authority disposed of the appeal, upholding the order of the 2nd respondent. The main ground raised by the petitioner is that sufficient opportunity was not given to him at the time of enquiry. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was not able to attend the enquiry due to bonafide reasons, but without accepting the same the 3rd respondent has passed the impugned order. Therefore, the present writ petition has been filed against the order passed by the respondents.
4. Learned Special Government Pleader submitted that an enquiry was conducted on the charges framed, but the petitioner did not avail the opportunity to appear before the enquiry officer and prove his case by stating the bonafide reasons for his unauthorised absence for such a long period. Further, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order issued by the Appellate Authority he could have very well approached the Revisional Authority, within 30 days time. Without exhausting the appeal remedy, the petitioner has approached this Court and hence writ petition cannot be entertained and so the same is liable to be dismissed.
5. In view of the submission made by the learned Special Government Pleader, that the petitioner can avail an alternative remedy before the Revisional authority, this petition cannot be entertained by this Court. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a revision before the concerned authority, if so advised, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. The Writ Petition is disposed of, on the above terms. No costs.
06.01.2017 Index: Yes/No avr To
1. The Director of Town Panchayat Kuralagam Chennai 600 108.
2. The District Collector Tiruvallur District Tiruvallur.
D.KRISHNAKUMAR.J., avr W.P.No.25492 of 2013 06.01.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in