S PACKIAM Vs. PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was proceeded against departmentally and, by virtue of the impugned order, dated 19.01.2001, passed by the Principal District Judge, Madurai, he was inflicted with the punishment of reduction in rank in the Seniority List and the period of suspension was ordered to be treated as leave to which he is entitled and the remaining period was ordered to be treated as leave on loss of pay. The said Order having been affirmed by the High Court on Appeal vide R.O.C. No.27772/2001/C1, dated 28.11.2001, he has preferred the present writ petition, challenging the aforesaid orders.

(2.) AT the foremost, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has no grievance against the order of punishment dated 19.01.2001, as affirmed by the order dated 28.11.2001, except the portion, in and by which, the period of suspension was treated to be one as on leave and he has not been allowed subsistence allowance as per Rule 17(e)(4) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeals) Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules').

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that as the petitioner is entitled to subsistence allowance for the period he was under suspension, the said period cannot be treated to be as on leave as it would amount to depriving him of a benefit he is legally entitled to. In that regard, he referred to Rule 17(e)(4) of the Rules.