LexSTATE OF TAMIL NADU versus THIRU K.S. MURUGESAN AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
STATE OF TAMIL NADU
v.
THIRU K.S. MURUGESAN AND ORS.
FEBRUARY 28, 1995
B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]
Senlice law-Tamil Nadu Statistics Service Rules-Rule 8-Promotion
to post of Deputy Director of Statistics on grounds of merit and ability-Cur-
--).
rency of punishment based on previous record an impediment-{]nless period
C of punishment gets expired by efflux of time, claim for consideration during y
the said period cannot be taken up-Doctrine of double jeopardy-Not ap-
plicable-Non consideration not violative of Art. 21 or Art. 14r/w 16 of Con-
stitution of,lndia.
Constitution of India-Arts 14, 16, 21-Doctrine of double jeopardy-
D Promotion on grounds of merit and ability-Cu"ency of punishment based
on previous record an impediment-Claim for consideration during the said
period cannot be taken up-Doctrine of double jeopardy not applicable-
Non-consideration is violative of neither Art 21 or Art. 14 r/w 16.
The State initiated proceedings against the respondent for miscon-
E duct in the year 1978 while he was working as Assistant Statistical Officer.
By order dated 6.12.1982 punishment of stoppage of three increments
without cumulative effect was imposed. On appeal, it was set aside and
re-enquiry was directed. On fresh enquiry, the same punishment was
imposed by proceedings dated 6.9.1984. For consideration of promotion to
F the post of Deputy Director of Statistics, which was to be made on grounds
of merit and ability, during the year 1983-84, the name of the respondent
was not included in the approval list as required under Rule 8 of the Tamil
Nadu Statistics Service Rules. The respondent challenged non-inclusion of
his name before the Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the
G order and directed reconsideration w.e.f. 1983-84. The Tribunal found that
having imposed the penalty of punishment of stoppage of three increments,
the promoti~~ ·could not be withheld on that account as the same
amounted to 'double jeopardy' offending Article 21 of the Constitution.
In appeal to this court, the respondent contended that under Rule 8
H of the Rules, the relevant date to be considered for inclusion in the list of
386
. r
STATEOFT.N. v. TIIIRUKS.MURUGESAN
387
the approved candidates for promotion was 1st September of the year of A
consideration. I~ 1984, when the respondent's claim was to be approverl,
there was no punishment in the eye of law and that, therefore, non-cor.-
sideration of his case was vitiated by error of faw.
Allowing the appeal, this Court
HELD: When promotion is under consideration, the previous record
forms the basis and when promotion is on merit and ability, the currency
of punishment based on previous record stands as an impediment. Unless
B
the period punishment gets expired by emux of time, the claim for con-
sideration during the said period cannot be taken up. Doing otherwise C
would amount to retrospective promotion which is impermissible under
the Rules and it would be a premium on misconduct. Under these cir-
cumstances, the doctrine of double jeopardy had no application and
non-consideration was violative of neither Article 21 nor Article 14 read
with Article 16 of the Constitution. [390-B-C]
Union of India v. Jankiraman, AIR (1991) SC 2010, relied on.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3432-33
of 1995.
D
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.6.93 of the Tamil Nadu E
Administrative Tribunal, Madras in T.A. No. 6/91 ~.P. No. 11465/84) and
O.A. No. 138 of 1991.
R.K. Jain, A. Mariarputham, Ms. Aruna Mathur and Ajay Kapoor
for the Appellant.
D.K. Pandey and S. Nanda Kumar for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
While the respondent was working as Assistant Statistical Officer, the
State had initiated proceedings against him for misconduct in the year 1978
F
G
and by order dated 6.12.82 punishment of stoppage of three increments
without cumulative effect was imposed. On appeal, it was set aside in
August 1984 and re-enquiry was directed. On fresh inquiry, the same H
388
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1995) 2 S.C.R.
A punishment was imposed by proceedings dated 6.9.84. For consideration
of promotions to the post of Deputy Director during the year 1983-84, the
name of the respondent was not included in the approval list as required
under Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Statistics Service Rules (for short, 'the
Rules'). The respondent filed 0.A. No. 138/91 in the AdExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.