Madras High Court
J.R.Clement Regis vs The District Elementary ... on 4 January, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.1092 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 04.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)No.1092 of 2020
J.R.Clement Regis ... Appellant/Writ Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Elementary Educational Officer,
District Elementary Educational Office,
Tirunelveli,
Tirunelveli District.
Now re-designated as
The District Educational Officer,
District Educational Office,
Thenkasi,
Thenkasi District.
2.The Assistant District Elementary Educational Officer,
Senkottai,
Tirunelveli District.
Now re-designated as
The Block Educational Officer,
Block Education Office,
Senkottai, Thenkasi District. ... Respondents/Respondents
Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act against the order
passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.2839 of 2013, dated 18.09.2019.
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/6
W.A.(MD)No.1092 of 2020
For Appellant : Mr.D.Sasikumar
For Respondents : Mrs.S.Srimathy
Special Government Pleader
*****
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J)
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant challenging the order
of the learned Single Judge, by which, a partial relief has been given, by
modifying the impugned order passed by the first respondent, dated 06.07.2012.
2.The appellant was working as a Secondary Grade Teacher.
Proceedings were initiated against him by framing charges under Rule 17(b) of
the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Pursuant to the
enquiry conducted, he was removed from service. The order of dismissal was
set aside by the order of this Court and the matter was remitted back to the first
respondent for passing fresh orders only in respect of quantum of punishment.
Accordingly, the impugned order was passed.
3.Once again, the said order was challenged by the appellant before
the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.2839 of 2013. The learned Single
Judge upon considering the relevant materials including the nature of charges
framed, was pleased to modify the punishment imposed by holding that the
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.1092 of 2020
misconduct is only negligence. Accordingly, the order of punishment has been
modified as to one of stoppage of increment for a period of three years without
cumulative effect. Not being satisfied with the said order, the present appeal is
filed.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the
co-delinquent has been imposed with a lesser punishment.
5.We are afraid that the same cannot be a ground to interfere with the
order of the learned Single Judge. The charges against the appellant is different
from the co-delinquent. This Court remitted the matter back on the earlier
occasion only by taking note of the doctrine of proportionality, as it was found
that the punishment imposed was inconsonance with the findings given earlier
on the misconduct of the appellant. Once again the order was modified by
holding that the misconduct being negligence, the punishment imposed under
the impugned order requires to be modified. Therefore, the appellant has
already got the benefit of discretion. This Court on more than one occasion
held that it cannot be assumed that the charges against the appellant are not true.
The order passed by this Court has become final. In such view of the matter, the
charges themselves being different as against the appellant and that of the co-
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.1092 of 2020
delinquent / 3rd party, whose punishment is sought to be compared, we do not
find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge, as more
leniency has already been shown to the appellant.
6.Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Index :Yes/No [M.M.S.J.,] [S.A.I.J.,]
Internet :Yes/No 04.01.2021
smn2
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be
utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy
of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall
be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1.The District Elementary Educational Officer,
District Elementary Educational Office,
Tirunelveli,
Tirunelveli District.
Now re-designated as
The District Educational Officer,
District Educational Office,
Thenkasi,
Thenkasi District.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.1092 of 2020
2.The Assistant District Elementary Educational Officer,
Senkottai,
Tirunelveli District.
Now re-designated as
The Block Educational Officer,
Block Education Office,
Senkottai, Thenkasi District.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.1092 of 2020
M.M.SUNDRESH, J.
AND
S.ANANTHI, J.
smn2
W.A.(MD)No.1092 of 2020
04.01.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
