LAWS(MAD)-2010-2-345

B STANLEY JONES Vs. SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISONS

Decided On February 24, 2010
B. STANLEY JONES Appellant
V/S
SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISONS, CHENNAI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the petitioners were working as Jail Warders and they were sent for a training in the Training School at Vellore Prison for a period of six months from 10.5.1992 to 25.2.1993 and since these petitioners absented themselves from taking part in the training programme, they were suspended from service on 1.12.1992. The orders of suspension were challenged by the petitioners before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and thereafter, as per the orders of the Tribunal, they were reinstated into service and their training period was extended.

(2.) IT is seen from the records that on 1.12.1992, these petitioners joining hands with three other colleagues have attacked and abused Mr.Ramamurthy, who is the Principal of the Training College in the rank of Jailor in filthy language, since he insisted one Samipillai, who arrived in civil dress and complaining headache required the sick-book from the Jailor, who directed him to appear before him by wearing Uniform prescribed. Enraged, the said Samipillai, petitioners and others, have attacked the said Jailor. Therefore, a charge memo. was issued to the petitioners on 26.4.1993, framing two charges under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules.

(3.) B.Stanley Jones (the petitioner in W.P.No.29751 of 2004), without filing any departmental appeal as against the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on him, has straight away approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.7868 of 2000 and the Tribunal, considering the fact that a similarly placed employee viz. N.Sethuraman was awarded lesser punishment by the appellate Authority and this petitioner was discriminated by awarding higher punishment, has ordered the said O.A. by the order dated 26.6.2002, set aside the award of the Tribunal and awarded a punishment of reduction of his pay to the bottom of the time scale for five years with cumulative effect. Aggrieved against this order passed by the Tribunal, the Superintendent, Central Prison, Chennai has filed W.P.No.2037 of 2003 before this Court and submitted before this Court that as against N.Sethuraman also the same punishment of compulsory retirement from service was inflicted and there is no question of any discrimination in treating the equally placed employees unequally. Considering this submission made by the respondents, a Division Bench of this Court, by the order dated 29.1.2004 has set aside the order of the Tribunal imposing lesser punishment and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal to be heard along with O.A.No.3098 of 2002 filed by N.Sethuraman.