In the above view of the matter it was submitted, that despite respondent number 5 being 60 steps below the appellant P. Dharni, he was being promoted unjustifiably above him, and many other similarly situated persons, senior to respondent number 5, K.V. Karthalingan.
The instant challenge raised by the State Government did number achieve the desired purpose, inasmuch as, the aforesaid writ petition came to be dismissed by an order dated 13.10.2004.
No.831, Home Tr II Department.
He also asserted, that he had detected irregularities being companymitted by certain dealers, for evading revenue payable to the Transport Department .
Besides the above petition filed by the State Government before this Court, one P. Mani also approached this Court by filing Petition for Special Leave to Appeal Civil bearing number 11542 of 2005, for assailing the order of the High Court dated 13.10.2004.
Despite the above legal position, namely, that the order of the High Court dated 13.10.2004 had attained finality, the State Government did number implement the order passed on 10.7.2002 in O.A. number 429 of 2002 by the Administrative Tribunal, or the order passed by the High Court dated 13.10.2004 in Writ Petition No.21562 of 2003 .
The said rules are reproduced below 36.
According to respondent number 5, his actions had resulted in bringing to book, numerous persons evading payment of tax to the Transport Department.
Based on the above pleas, this Court entertained the petition for special leave to appeal preferred by the appellants on 21.12.2011.
But, pending remarks from the Transport Commissioner, the Government issued O.2 D No.111, Home Trpt II Department dated 21.2.2007, temporarily promoting the petitioner as Regional Transport Officer and posted him at the office of the Regional Transport Officer, Chennai West .
It was also their companytention, that the petitioners number the appellants before this Court were never arrayed as party respondents in the litigation preferred by respondent number 5, K.V. Karthalingan, even though their rights were liable to be prejudicially affected by the promotion of respondent number 5, K.V. Karthalingan, to a higher post in the service.
After the dismissal of Writ Petition number 21562 of 2003 by the High Court, the Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal filed by the State Government, as also by a private individual, were withdrawn.
The Inspector found that the digit 6 had been repunched in lieu of 0.
Despite the above recommendations, numberaction was taken by the authorities.
On his companysideration, after he had acquired eligibility for promotion to the post of Motor Vehicles Inspector Grade I , he was promoted as such only on 10.5.2000.
The aforestated exemplary and outstanding merit was based on actions allegedly taken by respondent number 5, V. Karthalingan, while working as Motor Vehicles Inspector Grade II .
The aforesaid Original Application was allowed by the Administrative Tribunal vide an order dated 10.7.2002.
A perusal of the order dated 6.11.1998 reveals, that the Transport Secretary of the State Government, was directed to pass orders on the recommendations made by the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Trichy dated 10.7.1998.
Both the above mentioned petitions were withdrawn by the State Government, as also, by the said P. Mani, on 7.7.2006.
While allowing the aforesaid application, even though the State Government while rejecting the claim of respondent number 5 vide order dated 8.12.1998 had recorded that the instances indicated by him for out of turn accelerated promotion, companyld number be treated as exceptional or extraordinary, the Administrative Tribunal held that the same companystituted companyspicuous merit and ability, and were sufficient to earn respondent number5, V. Karthalingan, out of turn accelerated promotion as Regional Transport Officer.
A reminder was also sent by the said authority on 20.6.2011 and the petitioner has also sent a representation dated 14.7.2011, but numberorders have been passed till date by the Government.
And furthermore, a challenge raised to the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, before this Court had been withdrawn.
There is numberdispute about the extraordinary performance of the petitioner.
Even though respondent numberIn his letter dated 29.4.2010 addressed to the Director of vigilance and Anti corruption denied permission to prosecute the petitioner.
The merit and ability possessed by respondent number 5, K.V. Karthalingan, is number shown to have resulted in his having superseded other members of the cadre senior to them.
Dissatisfied with the order of the State Government dated 8.12.1998, respondent number 5 preferred Original Application number 429 of 2002 before the Administrative Tribunal.
In order to appreciate the recommendation made on 26.9.1997 by the Regional Transport Officer, it is essential to extract hereunder Rules 36 and 36A of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, which came into force with effect from 1.1.1955.
It was submitted, that even the other appellants were likewise superiorly placed visa vis respondent number 5, K.V. Karthalingan.
The State Government also arrived at the companyclusion, that the instances of extraordinary service relied upon by respondent number 5 to claim out of turn accelerated promotion , companyld number be treated as exceptional or unprecedented, because such instances were companymon in the Transport Department.
It is in the aforesaid background, that respondent number 5, K.V. Karthalingan, filed Contempt Petition number 5188 of 2006 before the High Court.
According to the petitioner, while the above process was on, on some companyplaints by a dealer, whose irregularities were found out by him, certain charges were framed against the petitioner by the authorities and on enquiry, final orders were passed in favour of the petitioner.
It is, therefore, that respondent number 5, K.V. Karthalingan, approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, at Chennai hereinafter referred to as, the Administrative Tribunal , by filing Original Application number 5918 of 1998.
The career of respondent number 5, K.V. Karthalingan, in the Transport Department of the State Government companymenced on his appointment by direct recruitment as Motor Vehicles Inspector Grade II , on 9.2.1995.
Following this the inspector verified the papers relating to the vehicle issued by a local dealer.
The High Court also took into companysideration Rule 36 b ii of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, and on the basis thereof held, that the statutory rules regulating the companyditions of service of respondent number 5, provided for out of turn accelerated promotion, based on meritorious outstanding service.
But, however, on the very same allegations, the succeeding Transport Commissioner, took a companytrary view and accorded sanction for prosecution on 24.11.2010.
According to respondent number 5, K.V. Karthalingan, the above actions were taken by him despite grave personal risks.
It came to light that as per the invoice issued by the manufacturers of June 8, 1996, the chassis number was A 606 F 3708242 and the vehicle has been registered from June 10.
The very facts relied upon by respondent number 5, K.V. Karthalingan, companystituted the basis of the recommendations of various authorities supervising his work and companyduct.
Despite the aforesaid assertion of the State Government in its order dated 8.12.1998, the Administrative Tribunal adjudicated upon the said disputed question of fact.
The High Court having taken numberice of the entire factual position upto the date of withdrawal of the petitions for special leave to appeal preferred before this Court, recorded the following observations After dismissal of the SLPs as withdrawn, the Special Commissioner and Transport Commissioner has sent a proposal to the Government on 19.7.2006, recommending the name of the petitioner for the post of Joint Transport Commissioner also after implementing the orders of the Tribunal and this Court, since the petitioner would reach that position if the orders are implemented properly.
Having examined the recommendations made in favour of respondent number 5, K.V. Karthalingan by the various authorities adverted to above , the State Government vide its order dated 8.12.1998 companycluded, that the factual basis relied upon by respondent number 5, K.V. Karthalingan, would number entitle him to out of turn accelerated promotion, as the instances of extraordinary service relied upon by him, were companymon in the Transport Department.
On receipt of the aforesaid representation, relying on the recommendation made by the Managing Director of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Kumbakonam Division 1 and Managing Director of Cholan Roadways Corporation, on 26.9.1997 the Regional Transport Officer, also recommended the claim of respondent number 5.
It reversed the factual finding recorded by the State Government.
Since respondent number 5 was junior to all of them, it was their submission, that they ought to have been arrayed as party respondents.
Accordingly, the High Court upheld the order passed by the Administrative Tribunal.
He also claimed to have detected various instances where dealers were found meddling with chassis numbers of vehicles.
For the instant reason also, reliance placed by respondent number 5, K.V. Karthalingan, for out of turn accelerated promotion under Rule 36 b ii of the General Rules deserves outright rejection.
He asserted, that he had seized the companycerned vehicles, whose owners were evading payment of tax to the Transport Department .
It was sought to be pointed out, that in the seniority list of the cadre of Motor Vehicles Inspector Grade I , whilst the name of P. Dharni appellant number 1 herein figured at serial number 81, that of respondent number 5, K.V. Karthalingan was placed at serial number 141.
The appellants before us filed Petition for Special Leave to Appeal Civil number 3464 of 2012 on having realised, that the claim raised by respondent number 5, for promotion to the post of Regional Transport Officer, had number fructified into a reality.
In appreciation of the above alleged exemplary devotion of duty displayed by respondent number 5, the Managing Director of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Kumbakonam Division 1, as well as, the Managing Director of Cholan Roadways Corporation, recommended the name of respondent number 5, K.V. Karthalingan, for accelerated out of turn promotion as Regional Transport Officer.
In the instant matter, the Administrative Tribunal had issued numberice to the respondents i.e, different functionaries of the State Government .
While doing so, the Administrative Tribunal did number await a response by the State Government.
The replied were similar.
By a process of tempering, chassis numbers were being altered, by the dealers.
Aggrieved with the decision rendered by the High Court in Writ Petition number 21562 of 2003 decided on 13.10.2004 , the State Government filed Petition for Special Leave to Appeal Civil bearing number 11538 of 2005.
The respondents were duly served.
According to the petitioner, the Special Commissioner and Transport Commissioner, by his companysidered remarks dated 10.05.2007, sent a proposal that his name has to be included in the list of panel of Regional Transport Officers for the year 1996, next to Mr. A.A. Khader Moideen, who was lastly promoted on 2.4.1996, vide G.O.Rt.
The petitioner would further companytend that the properties purchase through the business income of his wife and her brothers were shown as his disproportionate assets, charges were framed against him, but on enquiry, they dropped on 15.12.2008, in companysultation with TNPSC, and the former Principal Secretary and Transport Commissioner.
The matter came to be disposed of without any reply having been filed by the State Government.
But, again on 4.2.2011, the very same Transport Commissioner sent remarks, by referring the pleading that a person once companyvicted or acquitted shall number be tried for the same offence again, and sent his remarks to the Government stating that the Government is the companypetent authority to withdraw the case referred to Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Trichy at any stage, as per Rule 8 b of the TNSC DA Rules.
Consequent upon the issuance of the above directions, the State Government passed an order dated 8.12.1998.
Insofar as Original Application number429 of 2002 is companycerned, the same was disposed of on 10.7.2002 without seeking a reply from the State, even though it had been duly served.
The Deputy Transport Commissioner, Trichy, on 10.7.1998, having companysidered the above recommendations, endorsed the claim of respondent number 5, K.V. Karthalingan, for accelerated out of turn promotion, to the Commissioner of Transport, Chennai.
By the instant order, the claim of the respondent number 5 K.V. Karthalingan, for out of turn accelerated promotion came to be rejected.
Having recorded the aforesaid factual finding, as also having companycluded that there was a statutory provision whereunder the claim of respondent number 5 for out of turn accelerated promotion companyld be granted, the Administrative Tribunal directed the respondents, to issue an order promoting the respondent number 5 as Regional Transport Officer, within a period of six months from the date of the order dated 10.7.2002 .
While rejecting the prayer of respondent number 5, the State Government recorded, interalia, the following reasons The government have examined the representation of Mr. V. Kathalingam, taking into companysideration of the direction the Honble Tribunal .
Thereupon, the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Trichy, on 10.7.1998, further recommended respondent number 5, K.V. Karthalingan, for accelerated promotion, to the Commissioner of Transport, Chennai.
The aforesaid Original Application was disposed of by an order dated 6.11.1998, without issuing numberice to the respondents.
The simple reason depicted in the State Governments order dated 8.12.1998 was, that the instances of extraordinary service relied upon by respondent number 5, K.V. Karthalingan, to claim out of turn accelerated promotion, companyld number be treated as exceptional or unprecedented, as such instances were companymon in the Transport Department.
Jagdish Singh Khehar, J. Leave granted.
In paragraph 2 of the order passed by a Division Bench of the High Court, on a companysideration of the instances relied upon by respondent number 5, as also, the recommendations made by the Managing Directors of Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation, Kumbakonam Division 1 and Cholan Roadways Corporation, and the recommendation made by the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Trichy, dated 10.7.1998, it came to be companycluded, that respondent number 5, K.V. Karthalingan, was entitled to out of turn accelerated promotion.
For the said exercise, the cut off date stipulated under the Special Rules is 1st July of every year Rule 6 .
It was pointed out, that the above rules were framed in exercise of powers companyferred by the proviso under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
The High Court while disposing of Writ Petition Civil number 21562 of 2003, directed the State Government i.e. the petitioners before the High Court to implement the order passed by the Administrative Tribunal, within four months from the date of receipt of a companyy of the High Court order.
But the matter was disposed of without waiting for a reply from them.
As a result of the withdrawal of the aforesaid petitions, the order passed by the High Court on 13.10.2004 directing the State Government to promote respondent number 5 to the post of Regional Transport Officer, attained finality.
It was further pointed out, that even though respondent number 5 was promoted as Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade I on 10.5.2000, appellant number 1 Dharni was promoted as such, on 5.9.1994 i.e., almost six years before the promotion of respondent number 5 K.V. Karthalingan as Motor Vehicles Inspector Grade I .
Now that respondent number 5 had succeeded before the Administrative Tribunal, the State Government filed Writ Petition Civil number 21562 of 2003 before the High Court, to assail the order passed by the Administrative Tribunal dated 10.7.2002 whereby respondent number 5 was directed to be promoted to the post of Regional Transport Officer .
A perusal of the order passed by the State Government reveals, that the rules regulating the companyditions of service of respondent number 5 do number provide for an avenue for out of turn accelerated promotion.
Having heard learned companynsel for the rival parties we realised, that Original Application number5918 of 1998 filed by respondent number5 was disposed of on 6.11.1998 , without issuing numberice to the State or the affected parties.
While serving as Motor Vehicles Inspector Grade II , he claimed that he had detected on a single date 14 cases of passenger vans being used as public careers.
The reason for approaching this Court directly was, that it would be an exercise in futility for the appellants to approach the High Court, as a Division Bench of the High Court had already adjudicated the companytroversy, and while doing so, examined the factual, as well as, the legal propositions involved.
On 26.9.1997, having companysidered the recommendations made by the Managing Directors referred to above , the Regional Transport Officer by citing Rule 36 b ii of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, also recommended the claim of respondent number 5 for out of turn accelerated promotion.
No.2535 Home Transport II Department, dated 8.12.1998.
The appellants have also filed a rejoinder affidavit, to the companynter affidavit filed by respondent number5, K.V. Karthalingan.
Even though the State Government while seeking recourse to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, brought out other related facts showing that respondent number 5, K.V. Karthalingan, companyld number be treated as an employee entitled to out of turn accelerated promotion, the High Court rejected all those submissions and reversed the factual finding recorded by the State Government in its order dated 8.12.1998 .
In its aforesaid determination, the Administrative Tribunal recorded the following observations The rejection order is found in G.O.Ms.
