(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Declaration declaring that the order of the 2nd Respondent dated 13.03.2024 bearing proceedings No.007939/ 072/G67/ 2024 as illegal and unjust in so far as imposing the punishment of warning as the same cannot be construed as a punishment for any purpose in view of the same being not a punishment under Clause 20 of the Standing orders for workmen engaged in clerical Department of the respondent corporation and consequently direct the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Assistant Accounts officer pursuant to the order of the 1st respondent dated 28.07.2023 bearing memo No.059002/ 400/ G59/ G.592/ 2023- 1 from the date when her juniors were promoted with all consequential attendant and monetary benefits.)

1. The writ petition has been filed for the following relief:

                   “To issue a Writ of Declaration declaring that the order of the 2nd respondent dated 13.03.2024 bearing proceedings No.007939/ 072/G67/ 2024 as illegal and unjust in so far as imposes the punishment of warning as the same cannot be construed as a punishment for any purpose in view of the fact that it is not a punishment under Clause 20 of the Standing orders for workmen engaged in the clerical Department of the Respondent corporation and Consequently direct the Respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Assistant Accounts officer pursuant to the order of the 1st respondent dated 28.07.2023 bearing Memo No.059002/ 400/ G59/ G.592/ 2023- 1 from the date on which her juniors were promoted with all consequential attendant and monetary benefits.”

2. It is the case of the petitioner that she had joined the respondent- Board in the year 1997 as a Typist. Thereafter, she was promoted to the post of Assistant and subsequ ently to the post of Accounts Supervisor, in which post she has been working in the 4th respondent’s Office from the year 2002 onwards.

3. While so, one Chinnathai and Maheswari working in the 4th respondent Office had given a baseless complaint on 19.03.2022 stating that the petitioner was abusing and quarrelling with them. According to the petitioner, in fact it was they who had been harassing her on various issues including her marital status. Instead of taking action against them, the respondent initiated enquiry against the petitioner by appointing an Enquiry Officer. All this was done without framing charges. The enquiry was conducted behind the back of the petitioner and at the end of the enquiry, she received a communication from the 4th respondent dated 10.08.2022 stating that the Enquiry Officer had submitted a report dated 07.07.2022 holding that the allegations made in the complaint stood proved. However, even the said Enquiry Report was not made available to the petitioner in spite of her requesting for the same.

4. The petitioner gave an explanation based on the available materials on 17/19.09.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner received an order dated 21.09.2022 from the 1st respondent transferring her to the Palladam Electricity Distribution Circle and directing her to report at Palladam. She was also served with the relieving order of the 4th respondent dated 23.09.2022. The petitioner had challenged these orders in W.P.No.26980 of 2022 before this Court and by order dated 07.10.2022, the transfer order and the relieving order were quashed. However, the respondents did not allow the petitioner to immediately join services and it was only on 11.11.2022 that she could join duty. Thereafter, the petitioner gave a complaint dated 10.11.2022 to the Vigilance Officer of the respondent. Instead of taking action on her complaint, she was issued with a Charge Memo dated 19.11.2022 in which two charges were levelled against her. The charge was that she had abused Chinnathai and Maheshwari on a particular date. The petitioner had given a reply on 19.09.2022 and enclosed the documents to show that she was on earned leave and that the concerned employee was not in employment on the said date. However, without closing the issue, the Additional Chief Engineer had issued the Charge Memo dated 19.11.2022 to the petitioner stating that she had used office records while tendering the explanation and that she had not submitted the explanation to the complaint within the stipulated time.

5. Despite the explanation of the petitioner, once again an enquiry was conducted and the 3rd respondent by order dated 22.08.2023 imposed the punishment of withholding the annual increment for a period of six months without cumulative effect including the period spent on leave. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent on 11.09.2023.

6. Meanwhile, the 2nd respondent, by order dated 28.07.2023, had promoted the petitioner to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer and her name featured at Serial No.50. However, the order was not given effect to and the petitioner had continued to work as Accounts Supervisor. Meanwhile, she was transferred to Tiruppur by order dated 12.10.2023 without justification and her services was relieved on 17.10.2023. The petitioner was due to retire on 30.04.2024 and the order was issued just a few months prior to her retirement. This was challenged in W.P.No.34942 of 2023 and the same is pending before this Court.

7. In the meantime, the 2nd respondent had passed an order on her appeal and the punishment was modified to one of censure by order dated 13.03.2024. Though the petitioner had been included in the promotion panel earlier, she was not promoted. Even after the punishment was modified to one of censure, the 2nd respondent did not proceed to promote the petitioner. This order is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.

8. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit inter-alia contending that the petitioner had misbehaved with her colleagues and that they were aggrieved by her behaviour. The allegation that the enquiry was not conducted in a proper manner and that the enquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner has been denied as false. It is further stated that the petitioner was transferred to Tiruppur in the post of Accounts Supervisor. It is also contended that the petitioner was involved in tampering with official records and had not submitted the explanation within the stipulated time. Since the explanation was found to be unsatisfactory, charges were framed and ultimately proved, and final orders were passed on 22.08.2023. Since disciplinary proceedings were pending, she was not granted promotion. It is also stated that the Enquiry Officer had submitted his report and that since disciplinary proceedings were pending at the time of issuing the promotion order, the same was not served on the petitioner. Therefore, they sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

9. Heard the learned counsels on either side and perused the materials available on record.

10. A perusal of the proceedings dated 28.07.2023 shows that the petitioner has been promoted and her name is featured at Serial No.15. In paragraph No.15 of the counter affidavit, the 2nd respondent has stated as follows:

                   “I respectfully submit that the panel for promotion to the post from Accounts Supervisor to Assistant Accounts Officer was prepared including the name of Tmty.A.Valarmathi, the then Account Supervisor issued vide Memo. No. 059002/400/G59/G592/2023-1, dated: 28.07.2023 with the condition to serve the appointmentcum- posting orders to the officers only if they from D.P/undergoing punishment/Vigilance remarks. Due to pendency of Disciplinary Proceedings against the Petitioner at the time of serving of order, the promotion order has not been served to the Petitioner and same was cancelled vide Lr. No: 059002/400/G 59/G 592/2023 dated 16.09.2023.

Therefore, even according to the respondents, the promotion order was not served on the petitioner only because of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. Admittedly, the same has now culminated in a punishment of censure. A censure is not a punishment and will not be an impediment to granting promotion. In this regard, Chapter III Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Rules reads as follows:

                   “5. Warning: A warning is not one of the penalties mentioned in the Standing Orders or Discipline and Appeal Regulations under which the lightest of the contemplated penalties is "censure", 47 "Warning", is only a caution to Board servants to be more careful in future and to avoid repetition of a mistake or irregularity committed by him. As its very meaning cannotes, a "warning" would have served its purpose if the Board employee who was administered the "warning" subsequently improves and does not commit a repetition of the conduct which initially led to a "warning" being administered. The recording of "warning" in the personal file and the placing of copies of such orders in the personal file would necessarily create prejudice against the Board employee concerned when his record has to be assessed for purposes of promotion, etc., and this is neither permissible nor fair considering that "warning" is not a recognised punishment. However, "warning" in the past can be taken into account while determining the quantum of a punishment in a future case."

A reading of the above would clearly show that a warning or censure is not a punishment that would stand in the way of granting promotion.

11. In the light of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to promote the petitioner to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer from the date on which her juniors were promoted, with all consequential, attendant and monetary benefits. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.