IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 12.06.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.No.42772 of 2006 (T) A. Manickam ... Petitioner vs. 1. District Revenue Officer, Dharmapuri District. 2. Sub Collector, Hozur. ... Respondents Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records in Proceedings No. Roc. 17865/86 (A) dated 29.10.1997 of the Sub Collector, Hozur and set aside the same and consequently, treat the following periods as duty for all purposes. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ilamvaludhi For Respondents : Mr.C.Ramesh, Addl. Govt. Pleader O R D E R The petitioner has filed O.A.No.176 of 1999 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal challenging the proceedings of the Sub Collector, Hozur, second respondent dated 29.10.1997, by which, the petitioner was awarded with a punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect and that the period of suspension was also treated as punishment. 2. The facts leading to the writ petition are as follows: When the petitioner was working as Village Administrative Officer in Natrapalayam Administrative Office in Natrapalayam Village, he was abruptly relieved from the post on 29.10.1986, by order dated 22.10.1986 of the Tahsildar, Denkanikotta Taluk, Dharmapuri. Thereafter, he was placed under suspension, from 15.01.1987. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner was constrained to prefer a writ petition in W.P.No.718 of 1987 in this Court. While admitting the writ petition, this Court by order dated 23.01.1987, granted interim stay of suspension. Instead of giving effect to the said order, a charge memo dated 28.02.1987 was issued to the petitioner under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, by the Sub Collector, Hozur, the second respondent, which necessitated the petitioner to file a Contempt Petition. Subsequently, the petitioner was reinstated in service by order dated 16.07.1987 and posted as Village Administrative Officer, Jawlagiri. On conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner was inflicted with a penalty of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect and the temporary period of suspension has been treated as a substantial punishment. According to the petitioner, the second respondent, while imposing the penalty of stoppage of increment, ought to have regularised the period of suspension as duty. 3. The petitioner has further submitted that stoppage of increment is a punishment under Rule 8 (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and suspension is a separate punishment under Rule 8(i) of the said Rules. Thus, two punishments have been imposed for the same alleged misconduct and therefore, the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal and liable to be set aside. As the petitioner had been inflicted with the penalty of stoppage of increment, the period of suspension has to be treated as duty. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the Original Application to quash the impugned order and for a direction to the respondents to treat the period of suspension as duty for all purposes. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 5. On receipt of the report from the Revenue Inspector, Anchetty, regarding the alleged tampering of Revenue records by the Village Administrative Officer, Natrapalayam, the Tahsildar, Denkanikottai has conducted a detailed enquiry and sent his report dated 12.10.1986 to the Sub collector, Hozur, second respondent. The Sub Collector, Hozur, prima facie found that the petitioner has committed certain acts of irregularities and by order dated 12.01.1987, suspended the petitioner pending enquiry into the grave charges levelled against him. Subsequently charges were also framed on 28.02.1987 under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The enquiry officer has found that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. By an order dated 29.10.1997, which is impugned in this writ petition, the Sub Collector, Hozur has ordered the petitioner to suffer a penalty of (i) stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect and that (ii) the temporary period of suspension be treated as a substantial punishment. 6. Part II of the Tamil Nadu Civil services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules deals with classification of penalties that can be imposed on a member of the civil service of the State. As per Rule 8, for good and sufficient reasons, penalties like (i) censure (ii) fine (iii) withholding of increments or promotion may be imposed on a member of the civil service of the state and on every person holding a civil post under the state specified in rule 2. As per Rule 8(iii) of the above said rules, the appointing/disciplinary authority can inflict a penalty of withholding of increment or promotion. If a person was under suspension pending formulated charges, contemplation or enquiry into the period undergone by the member of the civil services of the state can be ordered as a substantial penalty under rule 8(i) of the above said rules. 7. In the case on hand for the proven misconduct, the second respondent had imposed both the penalties (i) stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect and (ii) period of suspension be treated as punishment. Both the penalties are separate under the discipline rules and inflicting two penalties for the same misconduct amounts to double jeopardy. 8. When the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner represented that the petitioner had already undergone the penalty of stoppage of increment. In the said circumstances, the impugned order is liable to be set aside to the extent of treating the period of suspension as substantial punishment. Consequently, the S. MANIKUMAR, J. rk appointing/disciplinary authority is directed to regulate the period of suspension in accordance with the provisions of Fundamental Rules, within a period of three months from the date of receipt or production of the copy of this order. With the above direction, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. 12.06.2008 rk Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No To 1. District Revenue Officer, Dharmapuri District. 2. Sub Collector, Hosur. W.P.NO.42772 of 2006