S THIRUNAVUKKARASU Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMMON Order: The petitioner in both the writ petitions is the same person. He was working as Deputy Secretary to the Government in the Social Welfare Department. Just 7 months before his retirement, he filed O.A.Nos.185 of 1997 and 567 of 1997 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. These two O.As. stood transferred to this court on the abolition of the Tribunal and were renumbered as W.P.Nos.30509 and 30510 of 2006.

(2.) IN The first O.A., the petitioner challenged the order of the Government G.O.(3D) No,8, P & AR Department, dated 22.6.1995 and G.O.(3D) No,3, P & AR Department dated 28.02.1996. By the order, dated 22.6.1995, the petitioner was issued with punishment of censure. The charge against the petitioner was that while he was working as Under Secretary to the Government, Animal Husbandry Department, he did not close the attendance and he attended the office late in as many as 16 days within a period of three months. After getting explanation from the Charge memo framed under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, the said punishment was given to him. The explanation offered by the petitioner was that his late comings were not intentional and beyond his control. The respondent State rejected his explanation and observed that he was given repeated oral warnings by the then Secretary to Government.

(3.) THE Supreme Court in its judgment in CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, V.S.P. AND OTHERS Vs. GOPARAJU SRI PRABHAKARA HARI BABU reported in (2008 5 SCC 569) had held that the High Court exercising power under Article 226 in dealing with the proportionality of the punishment is very limited. In paragraphs 20 and 21 of its judgment, it was held as follows: