IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:13.06.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.NO.12461 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2011 D.Ananda Krishnan ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Villupuram, Villupuram District. 2.The Personal Assistant to Collector (General) Office of the District Collector, Villupuram, Villupuram District. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus calling for the entire records which culminated in issuing the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.A4/18890/2009 dated 04.05.2011, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as Junior Assistant with all consequential service and monetary benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Mani For Respondents : Mr.K.V.Dhanapalan Additional Govt. Pleader O R D E R The present writ petition is filed against the impugned order passed by the second respondent/ P.A. to the Collector in Na.Ka.A4/18890/2009 dated 04.05.2011, imposing punishment of removal from service. 2.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that while the petitioner was serving as Junior Assistant, suffered a departmental proceedings for which he was issued with a charge memo dated 12.11.2005 containing two charges namely; the petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ married Soundari as second wife, who is the sister of his first wife and this violated Rule 19 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct Rules and when he was enquired on 28.09.2005, he suppressed the factum of second marriage. After the receipt of the charge memo, the petitioner submitted his explanation dated 02.01.2006. The Disciplinary Authority, having not satisfied with the explanation of the petitioner, ordered an enquiry by appointing an enquiry officer for going into the charges levelled against the petitioner. The enquiry officer on completion of the enquiry submitted his report on 10.07.2006 holding the charges proved against the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was also issued with second show cause notice on 26.07.2006, by furnishing the report of the enquiry officer, asking for further explanation. The petitioner had also submitted his further explanation on 06.07.2007. The Disciplinary Authority having not been satisfied with the further explanation of the petitioner, imposed the impugned punishment by order dated 04.05.2011 in terms of Rule 19 (2)(i) of the Conduct Rules, by accepting the report of the enquiry officer. 3.According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the only contention raised in the writ petition is that the said order imposing punishment of removal from service for the proved charge is totally against the order passed by the learned Tribunal in T.A.No.1275 & 1276 of 1998 dated 03.02.1994 in and by which it has been held that the Appointing Authority at the time of imposing major punishment should apply his mind. Without applying his mind, imposition of any major punishment is not legally sustainable. But in the present case, it has been submitted that the second respondent while passing the impugned order has failed to apply his mind. On that basis, he has prayed for setting aside the impugned order. It was further contended that after completing the exercise as contemplated under Rule 19 (2), the Appointing Authority before imposing any major punishment should apply his mind, on the basis of Rule 8 for imposing the punishment, but in the present case, it was contended that the second respondent has not applied his mind before imposing the major punishment of removal of the petitioner from service, hence it was further contended that the impugned punishment is liable to be set aside. 4.Opposing the said prayer, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has replied that the present writ petition is not maintainable for more than one reason. Firstly, the P.A. to the District Collector/ second respondent has passed the order of removal of the petitioner from service since the petitioner has violated Rule 19(2) of the Conduct Rules. As against the order passed by the second respondent, the petitioner has got right of appeal before the District Collector, the first respondent herein. Secondly, he contended that the petitioner's appeal is also pending on the file of the first respondent. When the petitioner has already filed an appeal and the same is pending on the file of the first https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent, prematurely challenging the order passed by the second respondent will have a cascading effect on the appeal pending before the first respondent. 5.As rightly contended by the learned Additional Govt. Pleader, though the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the first respondent and when his appeal against the present impugned order is pending consideration, before the said appeal is disposed of he should not have come to this Court by filing a writ petition, which will otherwise have direct bearing on the pending appeal before the first respondent. Under these circumstances, though the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the second respondent while passing the major penalty, has not properly applied his mind in terms of Rule 8. In view of the pendency of the appeal before the first respondent, without going into the merits of the pending appeal filed by the petitioner, I direct the first respondent/ District Collector, Villupuram to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal in T.A.No.1275 & 1276 of 1998 dated 03.02.1994 and pass orders on merits within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. 6.In the result, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/ Asst. Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar va To 1.The District Collector, Villupuram, Villupuram District. 2.The Personal Assistant to Collector (General) Office of the District Collector, Villupuram, Villupuram District. 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.34320 1 cc To M/s.S.Mani, Advocate, SR.33972 W.P.No.12461 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2011 KSK (CO) RH (20.6.11) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/