The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following the statutory appeal process and the power of the appellate authority in disciplinary matters.

1. The petitioner has preferred the instant Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus praying for passing of an order by this Court in calling for the records in the impugned orders in G.O.(D)No.135, PWD (E1), dated 27.03.2012 and to quash the same. Further, he has sought for passing of an order by this Court in directing the respondents, more particularly, the first respondent to retain his name in the appropriate place in the panel for promotion of Assistant Executive Engineer (without over looking him) to be released soon.

2. According to the petitioner, while he was serving in Government Stanley Hospital, each and every works contract reached to the level of Rs.50,000/- only. As such the expenditure to be arrived at was below Rs. 50,000/-. This was as per instruction of his immediate superior viz., the Dean of the Government Stanley Hospital, Chennai. Further, he cannot act against their dictum. However, the second respondent/Engineer in Chief (buildings), Chief Engineer (Buildings), Chennai Region and Chief Engineer (General), P.W.D., Chennai misunderstood this works contract, as if the petitioner splitted up the works to see that it is limited only upto an extend of Rs.50,000/-. Only on this flimsy ground, charges were framed initially against the immediate superior viz., A.E.E. (Engineer Bharathi)

3. During the year 2009, charges were initially framed only against Engineer Bharathi, A.E.E. as a Sub-Divisional Officer in Government Stanley Hospital, Subdivision (he was in charge of Stanley Hospital and RSRM Hospital Section, Rayapuram) for violation in finalising the tender contracts. Later, the said Engineer somehow or other was promoted and shifted to somewhere else and the charges that was earlier framed on the said Engineer Bharathi was shifted on the petitioner without any rhyme or reason (although he was attached only to Government Stanley Hospital and not in any way attached to RSRM Hospital). In fact, the said Bharathi was a Superior Officer, who approved each and every works. As such the very framing of the charges itself was totally not in order. As such he filed W.P.No.23235 of 2010 seeking to quash the charges and for consequential relief of promotion and other service benefits.

4. The petitioner filed W.P.No.20354 of 2010 before this Court to call for the connected records in regard to the issuance of the order of charge memo initiated on 28.03.2005 of the Executive Engineer, Marina Division, Chennai and the present charge memo No.CII (2) 6461/2007-16 dated 29.10.2009 of the respondent therein and to quash the same. Further, he has sought for passing of an order by this Court in directing the respondent therein to include his name in the panel for promotion of Assistant Executive Engineer for 2010-2011. In M.P.Nos.2 and 3 of 2010 in W.P.No.20354 of 2010, an interim stay was granted and also an interim direction was also issued to consider his name in any panel without reference to the second charge memo, if there are no other impediments. In the said writ petition is still pending.

5. Subsequently, he filed W.P.No.23235 of 2010 for quashing of all the charges and the said writ petition was withdrawn by the petitioner. Accordingly, this Court dismissed the said writ petition as withdrawn. Further, while he was working in Government Stanley Hospital, the final orders were passed imposing a punishment of stoppage of two increments for two years with cumulative effect affecting his pension for the future. As against the punishment order of stoppage of two increments for two years with cumulative effect affecting his pension, he filed present W.P.No.11078 of 2012. He filed petition before the Government and the Government passed orders on 25.09.2013 in G.O.(D)No.389 Public Works (F2) Department, wherein, the punishment of withholding of increment of two years with cumulative effect imposed on him was modified into that of withholding of increment for one year with cumulative effect.

6. The petitioner has put in 27 year