BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI W.P.(MD)No.13196 of 2022 S.Jayakumar ... Petitioner Vs.

The Principal District Judge, (Disciplinary Authority), Thanjavur District. ... Respondent Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the respondent in A.No.18/2020/AW1 dated 28.02.2022, quash the same and consequently reinstate the petitioner into service with all service and monetary benefits within the time fixed by this Court.

(Prayer is amended vide order dated 11.02.2026 in W.M.P.(MD)No.26251 of 2024)

For Petitioner : Mr.H.Arumugam For Respondent : M/s.N.Tamilmani * * *

O R D E R

Heard both sides.

2. The writ petitioner herein was serving as Junior Bailiff in Labour Court, Kumbakonam. The charge memo dated 26.05.2020 was issued. It contained the following articles of charge. They are as follows:-

The petitioner offered his explanation. It was not found acceptable.

Departmental enquiry was conducted. The Principal Sub Judge, Kumbakonam was appointed as enquiry officer. After giving full opportunity to the petitioner, the enquiry officer submitted the enquiry report dated 24.09.2021 holding that the charges have been established. A copy of the enquiry report was served on the petitioner. His further representation was also obtained. The disciplinary authority, namely, the Principal District Judge, Thanjavur concurred with the finding of the enquiry officer and imposed the punishment of removal from service vide order dated 28.02.2022.

Challenging the same, this writ petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner did not contest the finding regarding guilt. His focus was only on the nature of punishment imposed on the petitioner. The learned counsel pointed out that the co-delinquent, namely, Jeyaraman who was also working as Junior Bailiff in the Additional District Munsif, Thanjavur was imposed with the punishment of compulsory retirement. However, the petitioner had been handed out the harshest punishment of removal from service. In this regard, he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2019) 15 SCC 786 (Naresh Chandra Bhardwaj Vs. Bank of India). He submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied, if he is also imposed with the punishment of compulsory retirement. In other words, modification in the matter of punishment alone is prayed for.

4. The respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit. The learned Standing counsel took us through its contents. The learned Standing counsel pointed out that the petitioner cannot compare himself with the said Jeyaraman. The petitioner was charged for misconduct on two occasions. One charge against the petitioner was that he served summon to a third person. For that, he suffered reduction in rank for five years with effect from 01.10.2004 and it was modified as two years, nine months and twenty days. Thus, taking into account the past conduct of the petitioner, the disciplinary authority chose to impose the punishment of removal from service. He pointed out that the charge framed against the petitioner is rather grave. The delinquents namely Jayaraman and Jeyakumar, the petitioner herein had forged the signature of a fellow employee in a surety bond for availing loan from the Employees Cooperative Society. He called upon this Court to sustain the impugned order and dismiss the writ petition.

5. We carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record.

6. No doubt, the charge against the writ petitioner is rather serious. One Thiru.Jayaraman had availed loan from the Society. When the employee avails loan, he has to furnish surety. Jayaraman projected as if a fellow employee by name Gurumoorthi had signed in the surety bond. This loan application was process