1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.10.2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.(MD)No.11641 of 2011 A.Karunakaran ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Secretary to Government, Home (Police-17) Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The Director, Fire and Rescue Services, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008. 3. The Deputy Director, Fire and Rescue Services, Southern Region, Madurai. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned G.O.(d) No. 392, dated 8.5.2009 passed by the first respondent and the consequential impugned G.O. No. 140, dated 3.2.2010 passed by the first respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent include the name of the petitioner in the panel for promotion to the post of Divisional Fire Officer 1999-2000 (21.3.2001 on which the juniors were promoted) and promote him as Divisional Fire Officer with all consequential and further promotional benefits and pass such other and further suitable orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. For Petitioner : Mr. M.Gnanagurunathan For Respondents : Mr. T.R.Janarthanam, Additional Government Pleader O R D E R The present Writ Petition is directed against the impugned order passed by the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.140 dated 3.2.2010 confirming the order passed by the Appellate Authority as the original authority has initially imposed a punishment of censure and passed an order of recovery. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the petitioner was serving as Divisional Fire Officer, he was issued with a charge memo bearing No.2/99 dated 28.10.1999 with two charges for the alleged occurrence took place in the year 1992-1996 and on receipt of the charge memo, the petitioner submitted his explanation https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 denying all the charges and thereafter, having not satisfied with the explanation, an enquiry was ordered and the Enquiry Officer after giving all reasonable opportunities to the petitioner completed the enquiry and on completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 12.7.2002 stating that both the charges were proved against the petitioner. 3. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority by furnishing a copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer issued second Show Cause Notice calling upon the petitioner to submit his further explanation and after receipt of the further representation, finding that the further representation does not carry any merits, the disciplinary authority came to impose a punishment of censure and also finding that the petitioner has caused loss to the Department to the tune of Rs.4355/- passed an order of recovery of the said amount. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner went on appeal before the second respondent-the Director, Fire and Rescue Services, Egmore, Chennai. The second respondent also accepting the order passed by the third respondent confirmed the said appeal. Yet again, dissatisfied with the order passed by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner preferred a revision before the first respondent-the Secretary to Government, Home (Police-17) Department, Secretariate, Chennai. The revisional authority also dismissed the revision and confirmed the said order and the recovery was also found justifiable and aggrieved by the order, the petitioner has come to this Court. 5. The only argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court to set aside the order passed by the respondents herein is, when the third respondent has found fault with the petitioner on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer, he is justified in imposing the punishment of censure but he cannot go beyond imposing one punishment by passing another order of punishment and that will amount to double jeopardy. This contention does not appear to be correct. The reason being, the petitioner, by showing other's vehicle as his own vehicle, has withdrawn a sum of Rs.4355/- as vehicle allowance. This has been repeatedly found established by the disciplinary authority and subsequently, on appeal, the second respondent-the Appellate Authority has also confirmed the same. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Government. The first respondent also confirmed the order of the Appellate Authority. Since the findings on facts arrived have been confirmed by all the fact finding authorities, while sitting in Article 226 of Constitution of India, this Court cannot go into the same finding of facts accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the findings on facts. Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently,connected M.P. is also closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (RTI) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To 1. The Secretary to Government, Home (Police-17) Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The Director, Fire and Rescue Services, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008. 3. The Deputy Director, Fire and Rescue Services, Southern Region, Madurai. +1 CC to Special Government Pleader (SR.No.35484) W.P.(MD)No 11641 of 2011 12.10.2011 ses NSV/31.10.11/3P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/