Partly allowed

E.Nagarajan, v. The Principal Secretary

Madras HC5 Apr 2022WP/31964/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired police assistant challenged stoppage of increment punishment via writ petition. Finding the penalty disproportionate compared to co-delinquents with graver charges, the Court set aside the cumulative effect, directing modification to stoppage without cumulative effect. Petition partly allowed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order imposing stoppage of increment with cumulative effect set aside; direction to respondent to modify punishment to stoppage without cumulative effect within eight weeks.

E.Nagarajan, Vs The Principal Secretary — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 05.04.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶5

W.P.No.31964 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶6

E.Nagarajan Assistant, District Police Office, Thanjavur. ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The Principal Secretary to Government, Home (POL.V) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 9.

¶9

The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai – 600004. ... Respondents

¶10

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records in pursuant to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in G.O.(2D) No.138, Home (POL.V) Department, dated 09.04.2015 and quash the same.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Prem Narayan For Respondents : Mr.C.Selvaraj, Additional Government Pleader

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

The petitioner while working as a Junior Assistant at the District Police Office, Thanjavur, was levelled with certain charges. In the inquiry, the charge against the petitioner that he had associated himself with a Committee for purchasing lands and constructing houses for Police Personnel and Ministerial Staff of Thanjavur District, acted with a malafide intention to gain profit and obtain a plot at free of cost, was held to be

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

proved. The Disciplinary Authority had imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect. Aggrieved against the said punishment, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

¶16

The petitioner has now reached the age of superannuation and had retired from service in the year 2015. Along with the petitioner, two other co-delinquents namely K.Venkatesan and A.Kesavakumaran were levelled with charges stating that they had constituted a committee and had indulged in misuse of funds and breach of trust and thereby, subjected to a disciplinary action. The charges against both these delinquents were held to be proved in the inquiry and punishments of 'cut in pension at the rate of Rs.500/- per month for 6 months' was imposed.

¶17

The Inquiry Officer, on the strength of a document showing the amounts collected from each allottee, which was marked as Ex.P18, had found that the column pertaining to the amount collected was shown as 'nil' insofar as the petitioner herein is concerned. In this background, the Inquiry Officer had held the charge against the petitioner as 'proved' and punishment was also imposed. As such, the findings of the Inquiry Officer or the decision of the Disciplinary Authority to impose the punishment, cannot be found fault with.

¶18

However, on a comparison of the charges against the petitioner, along with the other co-delinquents, namely K.Venkatesan and A.Kesavakumaran, it is seen that the charges against the other two co-delinquents that they had formed a Committee and gained profit by misusing the funds and committed breach of trust, were grave in nature, than compared to the petitioner's charges. In this background, when the proportionateness of the punishment was considered, it is seen that the co-delinquents who were levelled with grave charges were imposed with the punishment of cut in pension at the rate of Rs.500/- per month for a period of six months whereas, the petitioner was awarded with a severe punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect. The effect of the punishment insofar as the other two delinquents are concerned would be a monetary loss of Rs.6,000/- only, whereas, the consequence of the punishment imposed on the petitioner, would affect his last drawn pay, as well as reduction in his monthly pension. When the charges of the co-delinquents were severe in compared to the petitioner, awarding of a lesser punishment to them, can be termed to be a discrimination and therefore, the punishment awarded to the petitioner herein, requires to be held as 'disproportionate'.

¶19

In the light of the above discussions, this Court is of the view that the punishment awarded to the petitioner herein,

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

could be ordered to be modified to a lesser punishment, thereby, enabling him to receive his full pension.

¶22

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 09.04.2015,

¶23

insofar as it relates to the imposition of punishment for a stoppage of increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect, is set aside. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the first respondent herein, to pass appropriate orders, modifying the punishment into one of stoppage of increment for a period of one year 'without' cumulative effect, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to point out that on passing of such orders, the petitioner would be entitled to all the monetary and service benefits which he would have been deprived of, in view of the impugned order dated 09.04.2015.

¶24

With the above directions, this Writ Petition stands partly allowed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶27

//True Copy//

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

Sni

¶30

¶31

The Principal Secretary to Government, Home (POL.V) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 9.

¶32

The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai – 600004.

¶33

+1cc to Mr.R.Prem Narayan, Advocate, S.R.No.23318

¶34

+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.23822

¶35

W.P.No.31964 of 2015

¶36

PA(CO) SU(02/05/2022)

¶37

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

E.Nagarajan, v. The Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.Nagarajan, v. The Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Velu Vs Supriya Sahu I.A.S.

Dr. R.Thiagarajan, Vs Tamil Nadu Veterinary &

Dr. R.Prakash Krupakaran, Vs Tamil Nadu Veterinary &

S.Manoharan, Vs the Chief Electoral Officer

C.Rajagopal, Vs the Principal Accountant

The General Manager, Vs Special Deputy Commissioner of