IMPORTANT POINT
The punishment imposed on temporary employees should be in proportion to the gravity of the proved charges, and departmental disciplinary proceedings should be initiated if allegations of misconduct are noticed.

JUDGMENT :

S.M. Subramaniam, J.

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondent in connection with the impugned order passed by the respondent in departmental inquiry No.5 of 2021 dated 14.02.2022 and quash the same and further direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential service and monetary benefits.)

1. The punishment of removal from service imposed on the petitioner in proceedings dated 14.02.2022, is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner, admittedly, was appointed as Temporary Junior Assistant under Rule 16(a)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service Rules [Old Rule 10(a)(1)]. The departmental disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the writ petitioner and as against one Smt. Amudhavalli, who is the permanent employee in the Judicial Department.

3. A charge memo under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, was issued in proceedings dated 23.04.2021. Two charges were framed against the writ petitioner and they are as follows:-

4. Separate charges were framed against the other delinquent employee Smt. Amudhavalli. The petitioner submitted explanations, denying the allegations. Not satisfied with that, the Disciplinary Authority appointed an Enquiry Officer, who, in turn, had conducted an enquiry and submitted a Final Report, holding that the charges are held proved against the writ petitioner. The Final Enquiry Report submitted by the Enquiry Officer was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and second show cause notice was issued seeking further objections on the findings of the Enquiry Officer in his report. The petitioner submitted her objections. Finally, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of removal from service.

5. Mr. S. Sivakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that in respect of the charges, a common departmental enquiry was conducted and the other employee Smt. Amudhavalli was imposed with the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect from the date of the order. When the allegations are similar and a common enquiry was conducted between the permanent employee and the temporary employee, the punishment of removal from service imposed on the petitioner is excessive and not in proportionate with the gravity of the proved charges. Thus the impugned order is to be set aside.

6. Ms. Kanchana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, would oppose the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, by stating that the petitioner cannot be equated with the other co-delinquent Smt. Amudhavalli. The petitioner was appointed as temporary employee and her services are liable to be terminated at any point of time. Since the petitioner committed misconduct, charges are framed commonly. However, the status of the two delinquents cannot be compared, since the Disciplinary Authority had left with no other option, but to impose the punishment of removal from service, as far as the petitioner is concerned, since she was the temporary employee.

7. It is stated even in the counter that, as regards the parity of punishment, both the punishments are major penalties, because the co delinquent was imposed with the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect.

8. Since the petitioner was only the temporary employee, the Disciplinary Authority was left with no other option, but to impose the penalty of removal of service. Thus, the petitioner cannot compare the other delinquent, who is the permanent employee.

9. There is no similarity in terms of employment and the service conditions. As far as the temporary employees are concerned, other punishments cannot be imposed and more-so, the charges against the petitioner had been proved. Thus the present writ petition is to be rejected.

10. We are of th