At, Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M. SUBRAMANIAM
For the Petitioner: R. Suriyanarayanan, Advocate. For the Respondents: J. Senthilkumaraiah, Standing Counsel.
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari Mandamus, to call for the records relating with the office memo, dated 03.03.2015 in Ma.Ni.Pi/E7/Special, issued by the first respondent and quash the same as illegal.)1. The office memo, dated 03.03.2015, issued by the first respondent is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition.2. The writ petitioner was appointed as a Driver in the erstwhile Pandian Roadways Corporation and caused an accident. The respondents Corporation initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and an order of punishment was issued in proceedings, dated 30.08.2014, imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect. Accordingly, the order of suspension was revoked and he was reinstated and was served in the respondents corporation. The petitioner retired from service on 31.03.2016. The impugned order stated that the punishment of stoppage of increment for three year with cumulative effect is to be implemented and in leave of that the amount equivalent to stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect is to be deducted from the benefits. The petitioner challenged the said order.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the punishment order was passed on 30.08.2014 and the punishment was already implemented. Therefore, the present order implementing the punishment second time is impermissible. It is further contended that the terminal and pensionary benefits of the petitioner is yet to be settled.4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents made a submission that the punishment imposed on 30.08.2014 was not implemented. In view of the fact that the petitioner was retired on 31.03.2016, the amount of punishment is calculated and sought to be recovered from the benefits. Thus, there is no infirmity in the order impugned and accordingly, the writ petition is to be dismissed.5. This Court is of the considered opinion that there is no dispute regarding the order of punishment imposed in proceedings, dated 30.08.2014. The said order of punishment became final. The punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect was imposed. Thus, the said punishment is to be calculated in terms of money and the said amount is to be recovered from the writ petitioner. However, the punishment was not implemented immediately, after passing of the order and therefore, the respondents have calculated the punishment amount and issued an order in proceedings, dated 03.03.2015. The learned counsel for the petitioner was not aware of the writ petition filed by the same writ petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.21362 of 2017. Pursuant to the said writ petition filed by the petitioner, the terminal and pensionary benefits were settled withholding the amount of punishment as per the impugned proceedings, dated 03.03.2015. The contention of the petitioner is incorrect. Recording the statement, the punishment was already implemented. In fact, the punishment was not implemented pursuant to the orders, dated 30.08.2014 and therefore, there is no impediment for the respondents to recover the pun
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
ishment amount as per the order of punishment, dated 30.08.2014.6. This being the factum, no further consideration is required as the petitioner has not established any acceptable ground for the purpose of considering the relief as such sought for. Thus, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.