IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30.07.2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE P.K.MISRA and THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH WRIT PETITION No.17275 OF 2000 and W.M.P.No.24964 of 2000 K.Sivakumar .. Petitioner. /versus/ 1. The High Court of Judicature, Madras, represented by the Registrar(General), Chennai – 104. 2. The Enquiry Officer, Principal District Judge, Thanjavur District. .. Respondents. Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the entire records relating to the proceedings in order in ROC.138/95 Con.B.2 dated 18.5.99 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same. For petitioner : Mr.R.Singaravelan. For respondents : Mr.K.Balasubramaniam, Special Govt. Pleader. (ORDER OF THE COURT WAS MADE BY P.K.MISRA,J.) Heard Mr.Singaravelan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Balasubramaniam, learned Special Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2. 2. A disciplinary proceedings was initiated against the present petitioner. Even though the Enquiry Officer/ Principal District Judge held that the charge had not been established, the Administrative Committee did not accept such findings and issued notice to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner gave a reply. However, the Administrative Committee did not find the reply satisfactory and recommended to the Full Court to impose the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ punishment of withholding of two increments without cumulative effect. Such recommendations of the Administrative Committee was accepted by the Full Court and punishment was imposed. However, such punishment as per the proceedings in Roc.138/95-Con.B.2 dated 18.5.1999 is questioned in the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that in fact there was no proof in support of the allegation and therefore, the Administrative Committee and consequently the Full Court should not have differed from the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer. 4. It is not in dispute that the punishment imposed is a minor penalty. Such a penalty could be imposed if the explanation is found to be unsatisfactory. Since the Administrative Committee and the Full Court had at that stage, applied their mind, we do not think it would be appropriate for us to sit in appeal over such a conclusion. Moreover, it is found that in the meantime, the officer concerned has been promoted. Therefore, if the matter is remitted back, it may not be in the interest of concerned officer. In such circumstance, we decline to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar sai To 1. The Registrar(General), The High Court of Judicature, Madras, Chennai – 104. 2. The Enquiry Officer, Principal District Judge, Thanjavur District. 1 cc To Mr.N.S.Sivakumar, Advocate, SR.33348. 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.33288. W.P.17275 OF 2000 TS(CO) RVL 12.08.2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/