The court upheld the punishment of withholding salary despite procedural irregularities, emphasizing the petitioner's acquiescence and the serious nature of the charges.

ORDER :

1. By this common order, both the writ petitions are being disposed of.

2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned punishment order dated 18.05.2012 bearing Na.Ka.No.12010/C2/E3/2011 passed by the 2^nd respondent, Joint Director of School Education (Personnel). By the Impugned Order, dated 18.05.2012, the petitioner has been imposed with the punishment of withholding of salary for a period of two years. The petitioner was proceeded departmentally by issuance of a Charge Memo during March, 2011 in respect of alleged sexual mis-behaviour, while working at Periasiruvathur, Villupuram District as a 'History Teacher'.

3. The charges framed against the petitioner by the 2^nd respondent in the Charge Memo are as under:

4. The case of the petitioner is that the aforesaid punishment of withholding of salary for a period of two years under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 1955') was contrary to Rule 8 of Rules, 1955. It is submitted that the aforesaid punishment is not contemplated under Rule 8 of Rules, 1955 and therefore, the punishment imposed vide Impugned Order dated 18.05.2012 bearing Ref. Na.Ka.No.12010/C2/E3/2011 is liable to be quashed. That apart, it is submitted that any mandatory requirement of second proviso to Rule 17 of Rules, 1955 has also not been followed.

5. That apart, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the aforesaid punishment of withholding of salary for a period of two years was imposed vide Impugned Order dated 18.05.2012, in reality, the respondent had implemented the punishment of also withholding increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect.

6. It is submitted that if the intention was to withhold increment for a period of two years, the mandatory requirement of second proviso to Rule 17(a) of Rules, 1955 ought to have been followed, as the aforesaid punishment impact the pension payable to the petitioner. It is further submitted that after Impugned Punishment Order dated 18.05.2012 was passed, the petitioner was not allowed to rejoin duty.

7. Therefore, the petitioner sent a representation dated 30.06.2012 pursuant to which the petitioner was reinstated in service on 17.06.2013. It is further submitted that the period between 18.05.2012 and 17.06.2013 should be treated as the petitioner having served and therefore, the petitioner should be paid salary and attendant benefits, as the petitioner had superannuated during the pendency of the present writ petition.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the Charge Memo states that the Statement of the Case, and the documents relied upon were furnished along with. However, the Charge Memo does not enclose a copy of the Statement of the Case, which constitutes a violation of the provisions of Rules, 1955.

9. That apart, it is submitted that the Inquiry Report was also not furnished to the petitioner and therefore, the penalty imposed vide Impugned Order dated 18.05.2012 was without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. That apart, it is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated for sexual mis-behaviour of minor children from the School, without any evidence. It is also stated that the petitioner was not allowed to cross- examine any of the witnesses, as no witnesses were produced during the enquiry and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that although the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of withholding of salary for a period of two years, indeed it has been implemented by withholding the increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect as in the Impugned Order and therefore, the impugned order does not merit any interference.

11. Consequently, it is submitted that W.P.No.28447 of 2014 has been filed to direct the respondents to treat the period between 18.05.2012 and 17.06.2013 as a period spent o