IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21.08.2009 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU Writ Petition No.34544 of 2006 (O.A.No.2279 of 1998) G.Kannan ...Petitioner Vs 1.The Director of Employment and Training, Chepauk, Madras-5. 2.The Deputy Chief, University Employment Information Guidance Bureau, Madurai-2 ...Respondents Prayer:- This writ petition has been originally filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal as O.A.No.2279 of 1998 and transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.34544 of 2006 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the first respondent in his proceedings Se.Mu.A.No.O.NAI/7283/92 dated 14.7.94 and quash the same and direct the respondents to grant the pay and allowances for the period of removal of service from 31.7.89 to 30.12.91 by treating the said period as duty period for all monetary and service benefits. For petitioner ... Mr.R.Singaravelan For respondents ... Mr.R.Neelakantan,Government Advocate O R D E R The petitioner was working as an Office Assistant under the control of the Sub-Employment Office at Mandapam. While he was working as an Office Assistant, a charge memo was issued under Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Out of four charges, two related to accepting of bribe and other two relate to causing loss of revenue to the Government. Since the charges were proved, the Regional Deputy Director (Employment) vide proceedings No.A2/7435/89 dismissed the petitioner from service. 2. As against the said dismissal, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Joint Director of Employment and Training which was also rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a review petition before the first respondent. The reviewing authority held that charges relating to bribe were not proved. However, the other two charges were proved and ordered the reinstatement of the petitioner but inflicted a punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. He was reinstated by an order dated 28.11.1991. 3. Subsequent to this reinstatement, the question arose as to how the interregnum period has to be treated. A show cause notice under F.R.54 was given to the petitioner. After giving the show cause notice, the respondents by order dated 14.07.1994 directed the period of dismissal from 31.07.1989 to 29.12.1991 as non-duty period in terms of sub rules 4 and 5 under F.R. 54. It was also ordered that the petitioner shall be paid 50% of pay and corresponding allowances for the interregnum period. The invocation of Sub Rules 4 and 5 of Rule 54 arose because the petitioner was not completely exonerated from the charges. 4. The petitioner filed O.A.No.2279 of 1998 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal seeking to challenge the order regularising his non-duty period. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was renumbered as W.P.No.34544 of 2006. 5. It is seen from the records that the petitioner did not challenge the punishment imposed on him though an attempt is now made to contend that such a punishment was unwarranted. The only challenge is to the order made in terms of F.R.54. 6. As per Sub Rules 4 and 5 of F.R.54 and in view of not being exonerated of the charges, the question of treating it as duty period will not arise. In the light of the same, there is no case made out to interfere with the present impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. 21.8.2009 Index:Yes/No Internet:yes/no nvsri To 1.The Director of Employment and Training, Chepauk, Madras-5. 2.The Deputy Chief, University Employment Information Guidance Bureau, Madurai-2 K.CHANDRU,j. nvsri W.P.No.34544 of 2006 (O.A.No.2279/1998) 21.08.2009