ORDER :

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in R.O.C. No. 53706/2020/C1 dated 19.03.2021 and quash the same.

1. The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition challenging the order dated 19.03.2021 passed by the first respondent, rejecting the appeal preferred by him against the order of discharge dated 27.04.2019 passed by the second respondent.

2. Heard Mr. M. Raja Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Vijay, learned counsel taking notice for the respondents and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

3. The petitioner was appointed as Office Assistant by direct recruitment on 09.02.2018. He was posted in the Sub Court, Salem where he joined duty on 12.02.2018. The petitioner's probation was not declared, rather, it was extended for a further period of six months on 04.02.2019.

4. During the course of the service of the petitioner, on 12.03.2019, two show cause notices were issued to him. In the first show cause notice, it was stated that the petitioner is habitually attending the office beyond the office hours and inspite of repeated instructions, he continued to attend the office at 10.10 hours in the morning, instead of 09.00 hours.

5. In the second show cause notice, it was stated that the petitioner is not carrying out the instructions given to him by his superior and that he is exhibiting insubordination and evading his duties. Therefore, by the show cause notices dated 12.03.2019, the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against him under Rule 17 (a) of the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.

6. Notwithstanding the show cause notices dated 12.03.2019, a further notice dated 21.03.2019 was issued to him seeking his explanation under Section 31 (1) (ii) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (condition of service) Act, 2016

7. On receipt of the notices referred to above, the petitioner submitted his explanation dated 03.04.2019 stating that his sister, who was given in marriage, was deserted by her husband and therefore, he and his mother were constrained to take care of his sister and his two children. According to the petitioner, due to such family situation, he was constrained to attend his duties late. Therefore, it was submitted that it is not his intention to come late to the office and that he will be very careful in attending his duties in future.

8. Not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, the second respondent passed an order in Roc. No. 3807/2019 dated 27.04.2019 relieving him from the services as Office Assistant with effect from 27.04.2019. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent and it was also rejected on 19.03.2021. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition questioning the correctness of the order dated 19.03.2021 of the first respondent, affirming the order of the second respondent, discharging him from the post of Office Assistant.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner only submitted that the second respondent did not take note of the family circumstances projected by the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner has assured that he will attend to his duties promptly in future, but that was not considered by the second respondent. According to the learned counsel, the respondents ought to have sympathetically considered the explanation offered by the petitioner before relieving him from the post of Office Assistant. In any event, given the facts and circumstances of the case, the second respondent ought not to have imposed major punishment of relieving the petitioner from the post of Office Assistant. The learned counsel further submitted that even the first respondent did not consider the grounds raised by th