(1.) It is the case of the petitioner that while working as Assistant Executive Engineer in the Public Works Department, Chennai, he was placed under suspension on 30.05.2006. The petitioner, on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2006, in view of the pendency of disciplinary proceedings, was not permitted to retire and a charge memo under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, was issued on the same day. After enquiry, the Petitioner was imposed with the punishment of removal from service vide G.O. (D) No. 508, Public Works (E1) Department dated 03.12.2013. Further, the Petitioner and some other officials, who had been prosecuted in criminal proceedings in Special C.C. No. 8 of 2011, were acquitted by order dated 27.04.2016. Thereafter, the Petitioner made a representation dated 03.02.2014 to the 1st Respondent for the encashment of his earned leave citing the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Jharkhand -vs- Jitendra Kumar Srivastava [(2013) 12 SCC 210]. The 2nd Respondent, vide proceedings No. CII(3)/2003/2006- 181 dated 20.02.2014, rejected the said claim on the ground that encashment of earned leave provided in Rule 86 of the Fundamental Rules is not applicable for such of those persons, who were punished with removal from service. Aggrieved by the said rejection, the present petition has been preferred.
(2.) When the matter is taken up, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, along with other persons faced departmental enquiry and the petitioner along with one other person were visited with punishment. While the petitioner filed the present writ petition, the other person filed W.P.No.30076/2016, which was allowed by the learned single Judge of this Court, which was taken in appeal and the Division Bench confirmed the order of the learned single Judge in W.A. No.1285/19 and, therefore, similar treatment be meted out to the petitioner herein.
(3.) Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents acceded to the said submission and submitted that the petition be allowed in terms with the order passed in W.P. No.30076/16 as affirmed in W.A. No1285/19.