Government Of Tamil Nadu And Ors vs M.C. Pandi And Ors

M.M Sundresh, J

This Writ Appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the order of the learned Single Judge, who while setting aside the order passed by the appellate authority and the reviewing authority, restored the one passed by the disciplinary authority.

The issue is with respect to receiving of money for leaking out the question paper by supplying the same to the prospective candidates. Respondent No.1 was working as Head Constable. Both the criminal case and the departmental enquiry were initiated against 61 persons, who were holding different ranks. Respondent No.1 herein was however, not made as an accused while proceeded with departmentally.

The disciplinary authority, pursuant to the enquiry report, held that the charges are proved and imposed a punishment of reduction of pay by one stage with cumulative effect. The appellate authority while confirming the said order, invoked Rule 15-A of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service [Discipline and Appeal] Rules [hereinafter referred to as ''the Rules''], seeking to enhance the punishment. Accordingly, the order of dismissal was passed. The reviewing authority has modified the same into one of compulsory retirement. The learned Single Judge while setting aside the order of the appellate authority and reviewing authority, has not assigned any reason for restoring the order of the original authority. Challenging the same, the present writ appeal has been filed.

On the last two hearings, we adjourned the matter upon hearing the counsels appearing for the parties, so as to get instructions from the appellants on the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.1/writ petitioner, by placing reliance upon the typed set of papers, that a lesser punishment such as, reduction in pay by one stage with cumulative effect was imposed against the similarly placed erring officials. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants today submitted that he is not in a position to get instructions in this regard. He is also not in a position to make any statement on the documents filed by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.1/writ petitioner. 5.Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also the materials available on record, we are inclined to confirm the order of the learned Single Judge on more than one ground. The learned Single Judge, on fact, found that no reason has been assigned while exercising Rule 15-A of the Rules. Article 14 of the Constitution of India would certainly come into play when similarly placed persons involved in similar charges proved are imposed with lesser punishment. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants is unable to get instructions on the assertion made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.1/writ petitioner.

Therefore, on both grounds, we are inclined to dismiss the writ appeal. Further, we do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.