Petitioner challenged a G.O. reducing his pension due to proved disciplinary charges. The court held the charges were grave, procedures were followed, punishment was commensurate, and the order could not be interfered with. WP dismissed.
No orders to establish. Writ Petition dismissed. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No.15614 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.06.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
W.P.No.15614 of 2015
C.Jayaraman
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Environment and Forest Department, Fort St. George,
Chennai-9.
2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai-15. ...Respondents
Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the first respondent in G.O.(D) No.285 dated 22.08.2013 and to quash the same and with consequential direction to the second respondent to repay the amount already recovered from the petitioner.
For Petitioner : M/s.T.Dharani For Respondents : (for R1 & R2) : M/s.S.Rajesh, Govt. Advocate
1/8
W.P.No.15614 of 2015
O R D E R
The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to quash the
order of the 1st respondent dated 22.08.2013 with the consequential
direction to the 2nd respondent to repay the amounts recovered from
the petitioner within a time frame.
2.1 The petitioner was appointed as a Forest Guard on 29.11.1979 through the Employment Exchange. Thereafter, he was transferred from the uniformed service to the Teaching service and appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the Forest School. On 19.09.1986, he was promoted to the post of PG Assistant. From 12.09.1996, the Pudurnadu Forest School High School where the petitioner was working was upgraded as a Higher Secondary school. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as a Higher Secondary School Head Master on 30.05.2004.
2.2 While in service he was visited with a charge memo issued
by the 2nd respondent dated 20.09.2008 under Section 17(b) of the
2/8
W.P.No.15614 of 2015
Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules. To the said charge memo, the petitioner had submitted his explanation on 06.05.2009 and 30.12.2010, denying all the charges made against him.
An enquiry was conducted and ultimately the petitioner was found guilty of charge Nos.1, 4, 5 and 7. Thereafter, he was permitted to retire from service by the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 27.06.2011 with effect from 30.06.2011 without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings pending against him.
2.3. On 22.08.2013, the 1st respondent had imposed punishment
of a cut in pension at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month for a period of one year. While imposing the punishment, the 2nd respondent had threatened the petitioner to give consent for the same. Though the petitioner was permitted to retire from service without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings, his retirement benefits have not been settled. Therefore, the petitioner, in order to receive his retirement benefits and pension had given his consent under coercion.
3/8
W.P.No.15614 of 2015
2.4. It is the contention of the petitioner that since the 2nd
respondent had issued a charge memo and the punishment had been imposed by the 1st respondent, who is the appellate authority, the provision to file an appeal against the punishment order is not available to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner had submitted a review petition before the 1st respondent. However, the 1st respondent has not considered the same to date. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
4/8
W.P.No.15614 of 2015
petitioner:-
"1. He has received Rs.100/- from students as bribe
for distribution of bicycles under free Government distribution scheme.
2(E). He has collected Rs.250/- per student for issue of school transfer certificate.
4.He has taken away 8 Benches and 3 ceiling fans to his hosue from the school and ceiling fans which has gifted by Narayany sakhti peadam to the school.
5.He is in the habit of consuming liquor daily and under intoxication abusing the students.
7. When he was the chief supervisor for Public Examination in Jamaunamarathur Forest Higher Secondary School, he was abetting by allowing the students to copy during examination whicch resulted in the
Publication of news in Tamil Daily Dinamalar dated
5/8
W.P.No.15614 of 2015
05.04.2007 under the caption "Fake Supervisor in Jamaunamarathur Examination Centre" for which he is responsible."
against the petitioner would show that they are grave charges especially taking into account the fact that the petitioner was a Head Master. The respondents have followed all due procedures while conducting the disciplinary proceedings and ultimately imposed the punishment. It is also stated that after finalizing the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner's consent was obtained as per the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules and thereafter the punishment of cut in pension of Rs.2,000/- for one year was imposed. That being the case. the petitioner cannot now challenge the order of punishment. That apart, considering the nature of the charges proved against the petitioner, the punishment imposed is commensurate with the charges proved. I see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the 1st respondent.
6/8
W.P.No.15614 of 2015
26.06.2024
(shr) Index : Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No
To
1.The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Environment and Forest Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
7/8
W.P.No.15614 of 2015
P.T. ASHA. J.,
(shr)
W.P.No.15614 of 2015
26.06.2024
8/8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the court should interfere with the first respondent's order imposing a cut in pension by way of punishment.
Whether the petitioner, who retired without prejudice to pending disciplinary proceedings, can challenge the subsequent punishment order.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
C. Jayaraman
The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Environment and Forest Department
The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest
P.T. ASHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
