Writ Petition No. 18164 of 2013 and M.P. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2013. Case: D. Jagannathan Vs S. Sattanathan and Ors.. High Court of Madras (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition No. 18164 of 2013 and M.P. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. M. Ravi, Adv. And For Respondents: Mr. Giridhar for Giridhar and Sai Associates, Mr. K. Sridhar, Mr. A.L. Somayaji, Advocate General Assisted by Mr. P.S. Sivashamugasundram, Adv. |
| Judges | N. Paul Vasanthakumar and M. M. Sundresh, JJ. |
| Issue | Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Sections 14, 19; Constitution of India - Articles 136, 226, 323A |
| Judgement Date | September 30, 2013 |
| Court | High Court of Madras (India) |
Order:
M. M. Sundresh, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 02.07.2013 passed in O.A. No. 686 of 2011 by the Central Administrative Tribunal in setting aside the notification issued by the second respondent in so far as his selection and appointment to the Indian Administrative service with a consequential direction to consider his case as that of the first respondent afresh. Facts in brief:
1.1. As per the Regulation 4 of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Selection) Regulations 1997, for every vacancy five names shall be sponsored to the Union Public service Commission viz., the third respondent herein. The criteria required as per the said regulation is outstanding merit and ability of officers, who have completed not less than eight years of service in the State apart from holding a Gazetted post in a substantive capacity. Regulation 5 mandates the suitability of a person for the appointment to the service shall be determined by the scrutiny of service records and personal interview.
1.2. The procedure adopted by the State Government to recommend Non-State Civil Service officers to Union Public Service Commission is that whenever vacancies are determined by the Government of India, a circular will be sent to all Secretaries to Government to recommend Non-State Civil Service officers, who possess outstanding merit and ability and their integrity is beyond doubt. The head of the Department will consider the officers under their control and recommend the names of Non State Civil service officers to the concerned Secretary to Government. The Secretary to Government, based on the recommendation received from the heads of the Departments, will recommend the names to the Public Department. On receipt of the recommendation from the Secretaries to Government, the Public Department will scrutinize the proposals received from various Departments. If any further particulars are required, the same will be called for from the concerned Secretary to Government. Thereafter, a Screening Committee will be constituted to screen and shortlist the names. The State Government will recommend the short listed names to the Union Public Services Commission. Thereafter, the Union Public Services Commission's statutory Selection Committee will consider the proposal received from the State Government and select the suitable candidates and recommend to the Government of India for conferring the status of IAS officers.
1.3. The Chief Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, vide his D.O.Lr. No. 23/2009-1, Public (Special-A) Department, dated 24.1.2009, requested all the Secretaries to Government to send proposals to the Public Department in respect of non-State Civil Service officers, who fulfilled the eligibility conditions laid down in the relevant Rules for the selection to IAS for the year 2009. In the said letter detailed guidelines were issued in connection with the preparation of proposal for recommending the non-State Civil Service officers for selection to IAS. It was instructed to send, among other things, the following details:
(1) Certificate regarding pendency of Vigilance/Departmental enquiry and departmental/Criminal Proceedings;
(2) Details of Penalty imposed, for the last 10 years;
(3) Details of Adverse remarks.
Based on the above guidelines the names of the following officials were recommended for consideration for selection to IAS for the year 2009 by the Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, vide his D.O. Letter NO. 10/RD&PR/2009, dated 19.06.2009.
1. Thiru S. Sattanathan, Additional Director of Rural Development;
2. Thiru T.R. Vedanayagam, Additional Director of Rural Development;
3. Thiru D. Jaganathan, Additional Director of Rural Development;
and
4. Thiru P. Ponnaiah, Additional Director of Rural Development.
1.4. As there are two vacancies available for the year 2009-2010, names were short listed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee consisting of Senior officers of the State Government. These 10 names have been short listed out of 43 names recommended by various Departments of the State Government. By the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, two other names have been included and they have been forwarded along with other names to the Union Public Service Commission for the selection to the Indian Administrative Service by the statutory Selection Committee.
1.5. The petitioner as well as the first respondent before us were two among the 12 candidates. In an earlier proceedings initiated against the petitioner in which, the first respondent was the Enquiry officer, two of the charges were found to be partly proved and as per which, an order of warning was issued. The final decision of the Government is produced hereunder.
The Government therefore, decide that out of the three charges, Charge 1 and 3 are held as 'partly proved' and charge 2 is held as 'not proved'. The delinquent is otherwise a good officer both in terms of competence and integrity. The present Commissioner of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj has also certified that the delinquent is a hard working and efficient officer whose case deserves to be considered sympathetically. Considering all the circumstances of the case and in particular, the role played by the then Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj and the 'then Collector', Thiruchirapalli who were the "active" players in this episode with the delinquent player playing a "passive" role and keeping in mind the delinquent officer's excellent track record in the past, the Government take a sympathetic view and order that Thiru D. Jagannathan, Project officer, District Rule Development Agency, Salem be let off with a warning. The said order against the petitioner has become final.
1.6. The Government Order passed in G.O. Ms. No. 11, Personnel and Administration Reforms (Per-R) Department, dated 05.01.1984, stipulates that warnings are not to be placed in the personal files as they are only a caution to be more careful or to avoid a particular line of conduct in future. The state Government did not place the records...
To continue reading
Request your trial