IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 10.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR W.P No. 21582 of 2010 and MP.No. 1 of 2010 M. Hariharan ..Petitioner Vs The Government of Puducherry rep by its Special Secretary (Arts and Culture)

and Vice-Chairman BPK, Secretariat, Puducherry. ..Respondent Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records relating to the respondents order made in 8937/DAC/Estt/Edn/Bpk/DE/09 dated 8.3.2010 to quash the same and consequently direct the Respondent to extend all benefits of increments and other service benefits forthwith thereto and to pass such further or other orders.

For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Sreevatsan For Respondents : Mr.R.Syed Mustafa, Spl.GP (Pondy)

O R D E R

The petitioner challenges the order dated 08.03.2010 issued by the first respondent. By the said order, a major penalty was imposed on the petitioner, whereby his pay was reduced by six stages from Rs.14,625/- to Rs.12,375/- in the time scale of pay of Rs.12,000-375-18,000/- for a period of six years with effect from the date of the order. It was further directed that the petitioner would not earn any increments during the period of reduction and that, on the expiry of the said period, the reduction would have the effect of postponing his future increments.

2. The petitioner, while serving as Officer on Special Duty at Lalith Kala Academy and Sangeeth Natak Academy, was issued a charge memorandum dated 18.11.2008. The substance of the allegations against him was that he had visited the United States of America to deliver guest lectures in certain Universities/Colleges without obtaining prior permission or approval from the competent authority. It was further alleged that he had utilised his entire leave credit of 30 days to perform classical musical concerts at the Greater Atlanta Vedic Temple in the USA. The explanation submitted by the petitioner was found unsatisfactory, necessitating the initiation of disciplinary proceedings. An Enquiry Officer was appointed, who, after conducting a detailed enquiry, submitted a report holding that Charge Nos.1 to 4 were proved and Charge No.5 was not proved. Thereafter, a second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, to which he submitted a further explanation. The Disciplinary Authority, after considering the enquiry report and the further explanation, accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer and passed the impugned order of punishment.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order on the ground that the punishment imposed is in excess of what is permissible under Rule 11(iii-a) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules, 1965”). It was contended that Rule 11(iii-a), which provides for minor penalties, ought to be read in conjunction with the relevant provisions, and that the penalty imposed travels beyond the scope of the said Rule. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the impugned order is arbitrary, discriminatory, and liable to be set aside.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that apart from the power to impose minor penalties under Rule 11(iii-a), the first respondent was also empowered to impose major penalties under Rule 11(v) of the Rules, 1965. It was contended that the penalty imposed falls within the ambit of Rule 11(v) and cannot be said to be in excess of the statutory provisions. The learned counsel therefore sought dismissal of the writ petition. In support of his submissions, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalu Prasad Yadav and another v. State of Bihar and another, reported in [(2010) 5 SCC 1].

5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has not challenged the findings recorded by the Enq