B PONNUSAMY Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who habitually puts in late attendance and who has not been doing any work is aggrieved by the fact of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect has been imposed on him.

(2.) IN fact, the respondent has clearly indicated that this will not affect his pension. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has given reasons for his absence and that it is only because of his wife was not well that there was some late attendance and that should be condoned.

(3.) NO ground has been raised alleging illegality in the conduct of enquiry. The enquiry has been conducted in accordance with law and punishment has been imposed. The order shows that the petitioner has not been discharging the basic duties as required. His only plea is some indulgence is to be shown. It is shocking to see the number of days, on which the petitioner has not put up even one file. The review filed was rejected since no material evidence was produced to review the case. In fact, the order shows that the punishment "will not affect his pension". Work ethics is something that needs to be inculcated in everyone. NO one has a right to treat his job as a sinecure. NOt only has the petitioner's appeal has been considered, the review has also been considered. I see no reason to interfere with this order. The writ petition is dismissed. NO costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.