9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 1393X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, the order of the Government rejecting the petition submitted by the writ petitioner seeking to modify the punishment of removal from service imposed on him into one of compulsory retirement was set aside and certain directions were issued. 2. The writ petitioner had served as an Assistant Elementary Educational Officer between 13.06.1990 and 30.06.1995 at Bhavanisagar, Erode District and after his transfer to the teacher post, a special audit was conducted with respect to the Provident Fund Accounts (PF) maintained in the office of the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, which revealed misappropriation of funds committed by the petitioner and two others, namely, Prabhakaran and N. Subramanian. Their modus operandi was that without ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be filed. 3. According to the writ petitioner, one of the co-accused persons, namely, N.Subramanian was also punished by the criminal court and dismissed from service, but the Director of Elementary Education had modified the dismissal order and thereby inflicted the punishment of compulsory retirement. Thus, he sought for the similar benefit, which was granted by the writ Court and the said order need not be disturbed. 4. The appellants herein, as the respondents, pleaded before the Writ Court that since the writ petitioner became B.T. Assistant subsequent to the commission of the alleged misappropriation, the Director of School Education dealt with the disciplinary proceedings, whereas, the co-accused N.Subramanian remained in the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accused. They have been proceeded with departmentally and criminally and both the proceedings ended against them. In the criminal case the trial court and appellate court found the accused guilty and sentenced them. This Court, which is the revisional court, while confirming the conviction, only modified the sentence to one of fine. Similarly, in the departmental proceedings also, the writ petitioner and other accused were found guilty and they were imposed with the punishment of removal from service. However, when they went on appeal, since the writ petitioner became B.T. Assistant subsequent to the commission of the alleged misappropriation, the Director of School Education dealt with the appeal, whereas, the co-accused N. Subramanian he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of quantum of punishment is very limited. It is the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority, which decides the nature of punishment keeping in mind the seriousness of the misconduct committed. This would not imply that if the punishment is so disproportionate that it shocks the conscience of the court the courts are denuded of the authority to interfere with the same. Normally even in such cases it may be appropriate to remit the matter back for consideration by the disciplinary/appellate authority. However, one other cause for interference can be where the plea raised is of parity in punishment but then the prerequisite would be that the parity has to be in the nature of charges made and held against the delinquent employee and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tionate to the nature of charges framed against the delinquent employee, the appropriate course of action is to remit the matter back to the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority with direction to pass appropriate order of penalty. The court by itself cannot mandate as to what should be the penalty in such a case. 19.5. The only exception to the principle stated in para 19.4 above, would be in those cases where the co-delinquent is awarded lesser punishment by the disciplinary authority even when the charges of misconduct was identical or the codelinquent was foisted with more serious charges. This would be on the doctrine of equality when it is found that the employee concerned and the co-delinquent are equally placed. Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter back, the Court can substitute a suitable punishment. 12. If the principle enunciated in the above judgments is applied to the facts of the instant case, it is clear that the writ petitioner is entitled for the similar treatment, that has been extended to N.Subramanian and after passage of time, remitting the matter again to the authorities would not serve any purpose. Thus, directing the authorities to modify the punishment imposed on the writ petitioner to the one that has been imposed on N.Subramanian would meet the ends of justice. Thus, the learned Single Judge rightly set aside the Government Order refusing to extent such benefit to him. We find no reason to interfere with the said order. 13. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
