The Principal Secretary To Government v. Ar.K. Prabu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN and C.M.P.No. 8641 of 2025 1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Engineer-in-Chief (WRD) & Chief Engineer, PWD (General), Chepauk, Chennai - 5.
3.The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Madurai Region, Madurai.
... Appellants Vs.
A.R.K.Prabu ... Respondent Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 13.03.2024 made in W.P.No.10777 of 2020. For Appellants : Mr.P.Anandakumar, Government Advocate For Respondent : Mr.V.Vijay Shankar 1/6
J U D G M E N T
(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.) We do not see any merit in the appeal. The respondent was charged with dereliction of duty in not ensuring quality of construction and made payments to the contractor who had used substandard material thereby, causing a loss of Rs.90,71,000/- to the Exchequer.
2. Along with the petitioner, three other persons were also charged with the same dereliction. The Disciplinary Authority while imposing the punishment of dismissal from service on the petitioner, dealt with others with very soft gloves and imposed punishment of cut in increment for two years with cumulative effect. The petitioner challenged the dismissal mainly on the ground that he has been treated differently without any reason.
3. Though it was contended before the learned single Judge that the respondent alone was responsible for the entire project and it was his duty to ensure quality, the learned single Judge found that the others were also similarly placed and they are just below the petitioner in the ranking and 2/6
they were also responsible for ensuring quality of the work. The learned single Judge also took note of the fact that the order impugned in the writ petition did not make any such distinction while imposing the capital punishment of dismissal from service on the petitioner. After having held so, the learned single Judge has only remitted the matter to the Authority to re-consider the punishment.
4. The writ Court has also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anand Regional Coop. Oil Seedsgrowers' Union Ltd., Vs. Shaileshkumar Harshadbhai Shah reported in 2006 (6) SCC 548 wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held when the misconduct is the same and the persons charged are of the same level or of equal status, the punishment should also be the same. Imposition of a punishment of very high magnitude namely, dismissal from service on one of them alone cannot be justified.
5. In view of the same, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the writ Court. This Writ Appeal therefore, fails and it is accordingly, dismissed. We direct he Revisional authority to carry out the exercise of re3/6
consideration and impose same penalty or any other minor penalty, considering the fact that the respondent was an Executive engineer. The Revisional Authority shall dispose of the revision within a period of three months from today. No cost. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(R.S.M., J.) (G.A.M., J.) 08.04.2025 kkn Index: No Speaking order Note: Issue order copy on 16.04.2025 4/6
To:- 1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Engineer-in-Chief (WRD) & Chief Engineer, PWD (General), Chepauk, Chennai - 5.
3.The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Madurai Region, Madurai.
5/6
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and G. ARUL MURUGAN, J.
KKN and C.M.P.No. 8641 of 2025 08.04.2025 6/6