9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the 'censure' order in the fourth disciplinary case. 2. Fairness in the assessment of Confidential Reports (CRs) by the Joint Screening Committee. 3. Relevance of old remarks made before the appellant's earlier promotion. 4. Whether the Chief Secretary should have recused himself from the Screening Committee. 5. Allegation of mala fides against respondents 3 and 4. 6. Relief to be granted. Summary: Point 1: Validity of 'Censure' Order The Supreme Court held that the 'censure' order dated 8.4.80 in the fourth disciplinary case was contrary to the Governor's direction during President's Rule to drop all disciplinary cases. The Governor's order was final and should have been treated as such by the State Government. The subsequent proceedings, including the 'censure' order, were without jurisdiction and void. The Court also found the 'censure' order arbitrary and unreasonable under Wednesbury principles. Point 2: Fairness in Assessment of CRs The Court observed that the Joint Screening Committee's assessment on 30.8.79 was flawed. The Committee relied on old and irrelevant material, did not give due weight to positive aspects of the appellant's career, and considered adverse remarks that should have been expunged after the Governor's order. The assessment did not meet the standards of fairness required under Article 16 of the Constitution. Point 3: Relevance of Old Remarks The Court held that adverse remarks made before the appellant's promotion to the selection grade in 1972 had lost their sting and should not have been given significant weight. The Committee's reliance on these old remarks was improper and violated principles laid down in Baikunth Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer. Point 4: Recusal of Chief Secretary The Court found that the Chief Secretary, Sri V. Karthikeyan, should have recused himself from the Joint Screening Committee due to a real likelihood of bias, given the pending defamation case filed by the appellant against him. His participation vitiated the Committee's recommendations. The doctrine of necessity did not apply as the Committee could have been reconstituted. Point 5: Allegation of Mala Fides The Court did not delve deeply into the allegations of mala fides against respondents 3 and 4, as the findings on bias and unfair assessment were sufficient to quash the Committee's recommendations and subsequent orders. Point 6: Relief Granted The Court quashed the 'censure' order, the Joint Screening Committee's assessment, and the orders of the State and Central Government denying the appellant's promotion. It directed the respondents to grant the appellant the benefit of the super-time scale from the date his junior was promoted, with all consequential benefits, including adjustments in pension and retiral benefits, to be implemented within eight weeks. The Court also awarded costs of Rs. 10,000 for each of the two writ petitions to be paid by the State of Tamil Nadu.
|
