1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05.04.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE K.SUGUNA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.ARUMUGHASWAMY W.A.(MD).No.60 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 1. The Manager, R.C.School, Bishop of Tuticorin, Tuticorin Diocese, Bishop House, Tuticorin. 2. The Superintendent of R.C.Schools, Bishop House, Tuticorin. : Appellants Vs. S.Peter Raj : Respondent PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 01.12.2010 made in W.P.(MD).No.3427 of 2006 on the file of this Court. Prayer in WP(MD)No.3427 of 2006:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records from the 2nd Respondent relating to the order in Ref. No.P/13-1 dated 1.4.06 of the 2nd Respondent, quash the same and consequently to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with back wages and other attendant benefits. For Appellants : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai for M/s.R.A.Xavier Arulraj For Respondent : Mr.G.R.Swaminathan for M/s.I.Robert Chandrakumar JUDGMENT ************* [Judgment of the Court was delivered BY K.SUGUNA, J] This Writ Appeal is directed as against the order dated 01.12.2010 passed in W.P.(MD).No.3427 of 2006. 2. The facts leading to this case are that while the private respondent was working as a Post Graduate Assistant in the first appellant school, certain allegations were levelled as against him. A charge memo was issued to him and an enquiry was conducted. By order dated 22.08.1998, the private respondent was dismissed from service. Challenging the same, the private respondent had filed W.P.No.14632 of 1998. By order dated 10.01.2006, the learned Single Judge of this Court https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 had disposed of the said Writ Petition and the operative portion of the order reads as follows:- "23. In the result, the Writ Petition is ordered with the following directions namely;- 1. It is held that the enquiry officer's report is perfectly in order and valid, 2. The punishment of dismissal is improportionate to the charges proved against the petitioner. Therefore, the first respondent is directed to reconsider the quantum of punishment in the light of the observation made herein and pass necessary orders in respect of quantum of punishment within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order." 3. In pursuance of the said order, the first appellant management passed an order dated 01.04.2006, by which a punishment of removal from service was imposed on the private respondent. Originally, by order dated 22.01.1998 punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on the private respondent and on remand, by order dated 01.04.2006, punishment of removal from service was imposed. 4. Challenging the said order of removal from service, the private respondent filed W.P.(MD).No.3427 of 2006. The learned Single Judge of this Court, by order dated 01.12.2010, had allowed the said Writ Petition and the operative portion of the order reads as follows:- "In the result, the Writ Petition is partly allowed, the impugned order of removal from service dated 01.04.2006 passed by the first respondent is set aside and instead, the first respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with 25% of back wages and with a further punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect." 5. As against the said order dated 01.12.2010, the present Writ Appeal is filed by the appellants management. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the appellants are willing to modify the punishment as compulsory retirement so as to enable the private respondent to get all the benefits. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, as far as the private respondent is concerned, as on date, he is the Correspondent of certain schools and as per the appellants' web-site, the code of conduct need not be followed. 7. Though a stand is taken by the learned counsel for the private respondent that as on date, the private respondent is the Correspondent of only one school and not other schools and he is not receiving any salary for the service rendered by him as Correspondent, as per the additional typed set of papers filed by the appellants, the position is different and we see some force in the stand of the learned counsel for the appellants. 8. Apart from the above, in the order dated 01.04.2006, by which the punishment was modified as one of removal from service, no reason has been given as to why the first appellant management has come to such conclusion and imposed the punishment of removal from service, especially https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 when there is an observation by this Court in W.P.No.14632 of 1998, dated 10.01.2006. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the order of the learned Single Judge dated 01.12.2010 made in W.P.(MD).No.3427 of 2006 and also the order of the first appellant management dated 01.04.2006 are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the first appellant management, who shall pass orders taking note of the observation made in W.P.No.14632 of 1998, dated 10.01.2006, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Appeal is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. sd/- Assistant Registrar (P&A) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar (C.S) To 1. The Manager, R.C.School, Bishop of Tuticorin, Tuticorin Diocese, Bishop House, Tuticorin. 2. The Superintendent of R.C.Schools, Bishop House, Tuticorin. Copy To: The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. + 1 cc to Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, Advocate, SR No.12784 + 1 cc to Mr.FR.A.Xavier Arulraj, Advocate, SR No.12571 JUDGMENT MADE IN W.A.(MD).No.60 of 2011 05.04.2011 NB RJ/14.6.11 3p/6c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/