9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 465X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ended in punishment, thus there is no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no merit in the writ petition and the same stands dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... count for the possession of Rs 4,900 Rs 3,410/, RS 2770/- Rs 300/- and RS 300/- respectively. Charge No.2: That the said, Tmt.C.R.Radhamani, while working as Assistant/Upper Division Inspector, K.G.Chavady (Incoming) Check post by committing the aforesaid lapses has failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and conducted herself in a manner unbecoming of a Government Servant and thus violated Rule 20(1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct Rules 1973." 2.4. The petitioner challenged both the above proceedings viz., Charge memo dated 19.01.2009 and 18.03.2010 by way of Writ Petition in W.P.No. 1461 of 2001 and this Court dimissed the same vide order dated 14.03.2011. The relevant portions of the order is extracted hereunder: "3. Perhaps the charge memo came to be issued by the 1st Respondent in order to proceed against all of them in a joint enquiry under Section 9(A) The petitioner has now come forward to challenge the charge memos and after setting aside the same seeks for inclusion of her name in the panel for promotion to the post of Assistant Commercial Tax Officer for the year 2009 and wants her seniority to be kept between Serial Nos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules are pending, the question of such Government servant being promoted pending the charge memo will not arise, especially in the context of Government guidelines in GO Ms No 368, P&AR Department dated 18.10.1993. Under the circumstances, there is no case made out. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs The connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. (emphasis supplied) 2.5. Thereafter, the charge memo dated 19.01.2009 was withdrawn on 30.03.2011, by the 2nd Respondent. On the basis of the above withdrawal, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that once the charge memo dated 19.01.2009 was withdrawan, then, on the crucial date which is admittedly 01.03.2009 there was no charge memo pending against the petitioner inasmuch as withdrawal would result in obliterating the proceeding from inception/ commencement. 3. To the contrary, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the Respondents that even before the withdrawal/ cancellation of 1st charge memo another charge memo dated 18.03.2010 came to be issued and thus there is a continuation of the proceeding without any hiatus and it is not as though the 1st charge memo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... withdrawal should necessarily be such, which requires or necessitates withdrawal of the charge memo. On the other hand if the charge memo/enquiry is withdrawn/dropped reserving liberty to initiate fresh action, but without assigning any reason, or by assigning reasons which are not relevant or by assigning wholly inadequate or inappropriate reasons for issued of a fresh charge memo or revival of the enquiry, a fresh charge memo cannot be issued in regard to the very same charges. The principle underlying Order 23, Rule 1 of the CPC will generally apply in such a situation." 12. The above-said contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has been considered by the Tribunal in paragraph Nos. 11, which reads as follows: "11. We have carefully considered the matter in terms of the citations provided by the learned counsel for the applicant. It is seen that the Tribunal/Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka have gone into the effect of non-observance of the instructions dated 5.7.1979 in each case based on the facts and circumstances of that case. In TA.44 of 1986, it was observed that the disciplinary authority while cancelling the memo of the charge issued earlier ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
