IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on Pronounced on

02.04.2025 09.04.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN WP No. 17994 of 2016 and WP No. 26017 of 2016 WP No. 17994 of 2016 T.Punniakoti, Attender (Retd.,)

Co-Op.tex (Head Office), No.90, Siruvallurpuram Street, Perambur, Chennai-600 012.

Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The Director of Handlooms and Textiles, Kuralagam, Chennai-600 108.

2.The Managing Director, T.N.Handloom Weavers' Co-Op. Society Ltd., 350, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai-8.

3.The General Manager (Admn.)

T.N.Handloom Weavers' Co-Op. Society Ltd., 350, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai-8.

Respondent(s)

D.Kathiresan Driver, Co-Op. Tex (Head Office), Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008 Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The Director of Handlooms and Textiles, Kuralagam, Chennai-600 108

2.The Managing Director T.N. Handloom Weavers' Co-Op. Society Ltd, 350, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai-8

3.The General Manager (Admn.)

T.N. Handloom Weavers' Co-op. Society Ltd, 350, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai-8 Respondent(s)

WP No. 17994 of 2016 PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the 1^st respondent's proceedings in Na.Ka.793/2015/ H3 dated 21.12.2015 as quash the same and direct the respondent to give the proportionate service and monitory benefits to the petitioner.

PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the 1st respondent's proceedings in Na.Ka.782/2015/ H3 dated 22.12.2015 as quash the same and direct the respondents to give the proportionate service and monitory benefits to the petitioner.

For Petitioner(s): M/s.M.Muthappan M.Alagu Gowtham and P.Boopal (in both petitions)

For Respondent(s): Mrs.S.Anitha, (For R1 )

Special Government Pleader Mr.M.Thirumoorthy (For R2 And R3)

For Mr.L.P.Shanmuga Sundaram (in both petitions)

COMMON ORDER

Since both Writ Petitions arise from the same set of facts, they are considered together and disposed of by a common order.

2.The petitioner/Puniakoti(W.P.17994 of 2016), has filed this writ petition challenging the punishment order passed by the first respondent on

08.09.2014.

2.1.The petitioner was employed as an Office Assistant at the Co-Optex Head Office in Chennai. In 2006, a criminal case was initiated under Crime No. 826 of 2006, alleging that the petitioner, along with a colleague, had stolen an old iron gate from the respondent’s office. The criminal case was concluded with an acquittal of the petitioner.

2.2.Simultaneously with the criminal case, the respondent initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. An Advocate was initially appointed as an Enquiry Officer, and based on his report, the charges were found to be proved. However, due to certain irregularities, a second Enquiry Officer, the Finance Manager of the department, was appointed. In the second report the charges were found to be not proven. Nevertheless, the management imposed a punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year, with cumulative effect, relying on the report of the first Enquiry Officer. The petitioner appealed against this decision, but the appeal was rejected.

2.3.On 29.11.2012, the petitioner was again suspended, and a charge memo was issued on 04.04.2013. The charge alleged that the petitioner was involved in the theft of a Hundial from the Selvavinayakar Temple, which was located within the Co-Optex campus. While an FIR was registered, the temple committee later withdrew their complaint. Nevertheless, the department proceeded with the charge memo, which also referred to the earlier punishment in 2006.

2.4.Based on the second Enquiry Officer’s report, the disciplinary authority imposed a punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of two years, without cumulative effect, through the proceedings dated 08.09.2014. The petitioner filed a statutory appeal against thi