Madras High Court
R.Kamaraj vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 June, 2022
W.A.No.1659 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.06.2022
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice PARESH UPADHYAY
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
W.A.No.1659 of 2021
and C.M.P. No.10466 of 2021
R.Kamaraj .. Appellant
Vs
1.State of Tamil Nadu
rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Handlooms Handicrafts and Textiles and
Khadi (F1) Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.
2.Chief Executive Officer,
Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board,
Kuralagam, Chennai - 108.
3.The Regional Deputy Director,
Khadi and Village Industries,
Tiruppur. ..
Respondents
Appeal preferred under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the
order dated 15.11.2016 made in W.P.No.18852 of 2008.
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1659 of 2021
For Appellant : Mr.S.Baskaran
For Respondents : Mr.Stalin Abhimanyu,
Addl. Govt. Pleader for R1
Mr.S.K.Bose for R2 and R3
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.)
Challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated
15.11.2016 recorded on W.P.No.18852 of 2008. This appeal is by
the writ petitioner.
2. Learned advocate for the writ petitioner/ appellant has
submitted that, after the order of learned single Judge dated
15.11.2016, modification was passed by the respondent authorities
vide order dated 26.09.2017 whereby the recovery part was deleted
and according to learned advocate for the appellant, as a
consequence of the respondent authorities deleting the recovery
part of the order, the other part of the punishment order of
withholding of increments would become unsustainable. It is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1659 of 2021
submitted that therefore the order of withholding of increments may
also be interfered with. It is submitted that this appeal be
entertained.
3. Learned Additional Government Pleader for the first
respondent has submitted that in due compliance of the directions
of learned single Judge, the State has re-considered so far the
recovery aspect is concerned and as rightly pointed out by the
learned advocate for the appellant, the modification order is passed
on 26.09.2017 and so far the remaining part of the order is
concerned, the same is just and proper and the same be not
interfered with. It is submitted that this appeal be dismissed.
4. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties and having considered the material on record this Court
finds as under:
4.1 The respondent authorities had passed an order on
15.06.2007 imposing punishment of withholding of three
increments with cumulative effect for alleged misconduct and loss to
the Government. The State had also passed an order recovering
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1659 of 2021
that amount from the petitioner. It is this order which was
challenged before this Court by way of writ petition and learned
single Judge has, vide para 17 passed the following order:
“17. In the result, this writ petition is
disposed with the following terms:-
1.The impugned orders in G.O.D. No.48
dated 15.06.2007 and G.O.(D) No.104 dated
31.08.2005 passed by the first respondent
inflicting the punishment on the petitioner are
sustainable.
2.The order of the recovery passed by the
3rd respondent in his proceedings in
Na.Ka.No.882/06/G1 dated 08.01.2007 is not
sustainable and the same is set-aside, the
matter relating to the recovery of money is
remanded back to the concerned authority for
consideration.”
4.2 We are in agreement with the above order, since after
imposing punishment of withholding of increment with cumulative
effect, second punishment could not have been imposed for
recovery of that amount which is also provided under the Rules. It
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1659 of 2021
could be termed to be the case of double punishment for one
disciplinary proceedings and therefore so far above quoted para
17(2) is concerned, learned single Judge rightly granted the relief.
4.3 Though there may be one perception that, there was no
question of even remanding the matter to the Government for
reconsideration. So far that part is concerned, the same would not
change the complexion for the reason that the Government has
already passed an order on 26.09.2017 deleting that part of the
double jeopardy. However, the argument on behalf of the appellant
that because the Government has passed modification on
26.09.2017, deleting that part of the said order whereby recovery
was ordered, it should be presumed that no loss was caused to the
Government, is not the valid argument and we reject the same. We
find that, the modification made by the Government pursuant to the
order of this Court dated 15.11.2016 can not be permitted to be
taken advantage of by the writ petitioner, who himself had invited
such a direction. The argument that, since the second part of the
punishment order is deleted, as the necessary consequence thereof,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1659 of 2021
first part should also be deleted as no loss was caused to the
Government is rejected.
4.4. We do not find any ground to interfere in the order of
learned single Judge. The writ appeal therefore needs to be
dismissed.
5. For the above reasons, this appeal is dismissed. No
costs. Connected miscellaneous petition would not survive.
(P.U., J) (A.D.J.C., J)
22.06.2022
Index:No
mmi/52
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1659 of 2021
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Handlooms Handicrafts and Textiles and
Khadi (F1) Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.
2.The Chief Executive Officer,
Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village
Industries Board,
Kuralagam, Chennai - 108.
3.The Regional Deputy Director,
Khadi and Village Industries,
Tiruppur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1659 of 2021
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
mmi
W.A.No.1659 of 2021
23.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
