High Court · 2024

W.P.No.26743 of 2022IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 06.02.2024CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANW.P.No.26743 of 2022and W.M.P.No.25799 of 2022D.Lakshmi Narayanan ... Petitioner-Vs-1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Labour Welfare and Skill Development, [E1] Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.2. The Commissioner of Labour, Labour Department, Chennai-6. ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the first respondent vide G.O.[3D] No.76, Labour Welfare and Skill Development [E1] Department dated 20.09.2022 and also the order of the second respondent vide E4/30303/2022 dated 20.09.2022 and to quash the same.For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vijayakumar, Senior Counsel for Mr.J.Melwin JabazFor Respondents : Mr.V.Veluchamy Additional Government PleaderPage 1 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26743 of 2022 ORDERThis Writ Petition has been filed challenging the orders passed by the first and second respondents, dated 20.09.2022, thereby imposed punishment of reduction to a lower post viz., Assistant Inspector of Labour for a period of seven years and also relieved the petitioner from the post of Assistant Commissioner of Labour.2. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.3. The petitioner had joined as Assistant Inspector of Labour, on 16.07.2002. After completion of training, he was transferred to Salem and now, he is serving as Labour Welfare Officer in the office of the Executive Engineer and General Superintendent Water Resources Department, Public Works Workshop and Stores, Chennai. While he was serving as Inspector of Labour, Krishnagiri, he was served with a charge memo dated 29.07.2013 consisting of two charges as follows:-“ Charge No.1:Thiru D.Lakshmi Narayanan, formerly Stamping Inspector, Krishnagiri, from 12.7.2007 to 30.7.2010 being the authority to verify and stamp the weighing machines Page 2 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26743 of 2022used by the traders, once in a year, had collected illegal gratification of money ranging from Rs.100/- to Rs.500/- from the traders in Hosur for stamping their weighing machines which are used for business purpose. Further during his tenure as Deputy Inspector of Labour, Krishnagiri, from 31.7.2010 to 1.5.2012 he had collected Rs.500/- to Rs.1,500/- from the petrol bunks in Kelamangalam, Royakottai and Udhannapalli, while inspecting and stamping the pumps used for the supply of petrol to the vehicles in the petrol bunk. This is a misconduct.Charge No.2:He has violated Rule 20 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules 1973. 20[1] Every Member of the service shall at all times maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and shall do nothing which is unbecoming of a member of the service.” 4. On receipt of the same, the petitioner submitted his explanation, on 30.08.2013. Without being satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, Enquiry Officer was appointed on 31.10.2013. The Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry and submitted his report to the disciplinary authority, on 08.09.2014. It was served on the petitioner along with a show cause notice. On receipt of the same, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 12.12.2014. However, he was issued an order of punishment only 20.09.2022, thereby imposed punishment of reduction to lower post i.e., Assistant Inspector of Labour, for a period of seven years with effect from date of issue of the order. The period of reduction is ordered with cumulative effect i.e., to postpone his future increment for seven years and after restoration to the original post. Page 3 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26743 of 2022Further, it allowed the petitioner to draw the pay that he had last drawn as Assistant Inspector of Labour before his promotion as Deputy Inspector of Labour and the period of reduction to be reckoned is inclusive of intervals spent on leave.5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the charge memo was issued in the year 2013, the petitioner was imposed with the above said punishment after a period of nine years. In fact, the petitioner was served with enquiry report in the year 2014 and immediately, the petitioner submitted his explanation. Therefore, the petitioner was under impression that his explanation was accepted and he was exonerated from all the charges. All of a sudden, after a period of nine years, the petitioner was imposed with the impugned punishment. Though there is no evidence to hold both the charges as proved, the Enquiry Officer held the charges are partially proved. It is unheard insofar as corruption charges.6. A perusal of the counter and the submission made by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents revealed that the petitioner was charged with regard to the allegation of illegal gratification and Page 4 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26743 of 2022money ranging from Rs.100/- to Rs.500/- from the traders in Hosur for stamping their weighing machines which are used for business purpose. Further during his tenure as Deputy Inspector of Labour, Krishnagiri, from 31.7.2010 to 1.5.2012 and he had also collected Rs.500/- to Rs.1,500/- from the petrol bunks in Kelamangalam, Royakottai and Udhannapalli, while inspecting and stamping the pumps used for the supply of petrol to the vehicles in the petrol bunk. 7. Therefore, the preliminary enquiry was conducted under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, and the petitioner was issued with charge memo. According to the Enquiry Officer, both the charges are partly proved and the petitioner was served with enquiry report. He was called upon to submit his explanation. The explanation was not found satisfied and as such, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of reduction to lower post viz., post in which he was directly recruited vide G.O.(2D) No.57, Labour and Employment (E1) Department, dated 09.12.2016. It was further revealed that the petitioner was arrested pursuant to the registration of FIR in Crime No.2/AC/2018 dated 10.01.2018 for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. Due to which, the petitioner was placed under suspension from service with effect from Page 5 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26743 of 202209.01.2018. Subsequently, the petitioner challenged the order of suspension in W.P.No.19037 of 2021 before this Court and to direct the first respondent therein to reinstate the petitioner in service with all attendant benefits. This Court, by an order dated 09.09.2021, directed to reinstate the petitioner in a non-sensitive post. Aggrieved by the same, writ appeal was filed and the same was also dismissed. After filing contempt petition, the first respondent had revoked his order of suspension and reinstated him to service as Labour Welfare Officer, Public Works Department Workshop, Chennai.8. Therefore, the arrest of the petitioner is no way connected with the charge memo issued in the year 2013. There is absolutely no explanation for the delay in passing the final order after a period of nine years from the date of issuance of charge.9. Further, a perusal of records also revealed that the Enquiry Officer concluded as follows:- ,e;epiyapy; cj;jdg;gs;sp _ ghyh$p V$d;rP!;.“ Cwr/gp/Oyh; epWtdj;jpd; nkyhsh; rhl;rp jpU/ E}h; mfkJ $hd; vd;gth; y";r xHpg;g[j;Jiw Kd;g[ mspj;j thf;FK:yj;jpd; mog;gilapYk;. ,t;tprhuizapd; nghJ mth; mspj;j gpukhd thf;F K:yk; kw;Wk; mth; FWf;F tprhuizapd; nghJ muRj; jug;g[ mYtyh; kw;Wk; Fw;wk; rhl;lg;gl;l mYtyh; Kd;dpiyapy; Page 6 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26743 of 2022bjhptpj;j rhl;rpa';fs; Mfpait midj;Jnk Fw;wr;rhl;L 1 kw;Wk; 2 y; Fwpg;gpl;l Fw;wr;rhl;Lfis Vw;Fk; tifapy; mike;Js;sJ/ Fw;wk; rhl;lg;gl;l mYtyh; fpUc&;zfpupapy; 12/7/07 Kjy; 30/7/10 Koa Kj;jpiu Ma;thsuhf gzpg[upe;j fhyj;jpYk;. 31/7/10 Kjy; 1/5/12 Koa bjhHpyhsh; Jiz Ma;thsuhf gzpg[upa[k; nghJ gzpapy; fhzg;gl;l FiwghLfs; Fwpj;J ,U gjtpfspy; Fw;wk; rhl;lg;gl;Ls;sjpy; Kj;jpiu Ma;thsuhf gzpg[upe;j fhyj;jpy; mth; kPJ Rkj;jg;gl;l Fw;wr;rhl;Lfs; epU:gpf;fg;gltpy;iy vd nkny Kot[ bra;ag;gl;l epiyapy; mth; bjhHpyhsh; Jiz Ma;thsuhf 31/7/10 Kjy; 1/5/12 tiu gzpg[upe;j bghGJ Fw;wr;rhl;oy; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s Fw;wr; rhl;Lfs; Fwpj;J cj;jdg;gs;sp _ ghyh$p V$d;rP!; epWtdj;jpd; nkyhsh; mspj;j y";r xHpg;g[j;Jiw tprhuiz thf;FK:yk;. ,t;tprhuizapd; nghJ mspj;j gpukhd thf;FK:yk; kw;Wk; FWf;F tprhuiz Mfpatw;wpd; mog;gilapYk; nkYk; ,jid kWj;J Fw;wk; rhl;lg;gl;l mYtyh; TWk; fhuz';fis epU:gpf;f jug;gpw;F nghjpa mtfhrk; tH';fpa[k; mtuJ jug;g[ thjj;jpid epU:gpf;f ,aw;if epajp nfhl;ghLfSf;F cl;gl;L gy re;jh;g;g';fs; tH';fpa[k; mth; chpa rhl;rpa';fisnah. rhd;whtz';fisnah bfhz;L Kd;dpWj;jp epU:gpf;ftpy;iy vd;gjhy; muRj; jug;gpy; Fw;wk; rhl;lg;gl;Ls;s mYtyh; jpU/J/byl;Rkp ehuhazd; vd;gth; kPJ Rkj;jg;gl;Ls;s Fw;wr;rhl;L bjhHpyhsh; Jiz Ma;thsuhf mth; gzpg[upe;j fhyj;jpw;F kl;Lk; bghUe;Jk; tifapy; epU:gpf;fg;gl;Ls;sjhy; Fw;wr;rhl;Lfs; gFjpahf epU:gpf;fg;gl;ljhf Kot[ bra;fpnwd;/”10. Though the Enquiry Officer found that the disciplinary authority failed to prove the allegation, except while the petitioner was serving at Krishnagiri District, he held the charges partially proved. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, there is a question Page 7 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26743 of 2022of proving the charges partially in the corruption allegations. Only on the basis of statement made by one of the petrol bunks, that too without any evidence, the Enquiry Officer came to the above conclusion. Further, there is absolutely no explanation for the delay in passing the final order. The delay in passing the final order caused grave prejudice to the petitioner. Keeping the official under charges of corruption and disputing his/her integrity would cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the officer concerned. Therefore, it should be avoided not only in the interests of the Government employee but in public interest and also in the interests of inspiring confidence in the minds of the Government employees. As a matter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the petitioner due to the protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much more than the punishment.11. It is not the case of the disciplinary authority that the petitioner protracted the disciplinary proceedings. Admittedly, the enquiry was conducted in the year 2014 and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report. Thereafter, it was served on the petitioner and on receipt of the same, the petitioner also submitted his explanation for the enquiry report, as on 12.12.2014. But the disciplinary authority did not pass any order on the enquiry report as well as the Page 8 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26743 of 2022explanation submitted by the petitioner, till the month of September, 2022. Only on 20.09.2022, the order of punishment was issued on the petitioner.12. Therefore, impugned orders cannot be sustained as against the petitioner and are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the proceedings of the first respondent vide G.O.[3D] No.76, Labour Welfare and Skill Development [E1] Department dated 20.09.2022 and the order of the second respondent vide E4/30303/2022 dated 20.09.2022, are hereby quashed.13. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.06.02.2024Internet: YesIndex : Yes/NoSpeaking/Non Speaking ordermnPage 9 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26743 of 2022 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,mnTo1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Labour Welfare and Skill Development, [E1] Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.2. The Commissioner of Labour, Labour Department, Chennai-6.W.P.No.26743 of 202206.02.2024Page 10 of 10

W.P.No.26743 of 2022IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 06.02.2024CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANW.P.No.26743 of 2022and W.M.P.No.25799 of 2022D.Lakshmi Narayanan ... Petitioner-Vs-1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Labour Welfare and Skill Development, [E1] Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.2. The Commissioner of Labour, Labour Department, Chennai-6. ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the first respondent vide G.O.[3D] No.76, Labour Welfare and Skill Development [E1] Department dated 20.09.2022 and also the order of the second respondent vide E4/30303/2022 dated 20.09.2022 and to quash the same.For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vijayakumar, Senior Counsel for Mr.J.Melwin JabazFor Respondents : Mr.V.Veluchamy Additional Government PleaderPage 1 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26743 of 2022 ORDERThis Writ Petition has been filed challenging the orders passed by the first and second respondents, dated 20.09.2022, thereby imposed punishment of reduction to a lower post viz., Assistant Inspector of Labour for a period of seven years and also relieved the petitioner from the post of Assistant Commissioner of Labour.2. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.3. The petitioner had joined as Assistant Inspector of Labour, on 16.07.2002. After completion of training, he was transferred to Salem and now, he is serving as Labour Welfare Officer in the office of the Executive Engineer and General Superintendent Water Resources Department, Public Works Workshop and Stores, Chennai. While he was serving as Inspector of Labour, Krishnagiri, he was served with a charge memo dated 29.07.2013 consisting of two charges as follows:-“ Charge No.1:Thiru D.Lakshmi Narayanan, formerly Stamping Inspector, Krishnagiri, from 12.7.2007 to 30.7.2010 being the authority to verify and stamp the weighing machines Page 2 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26743 of 2022used by the traders, once in a year, had collected illegal gratification of money ranging from Rs.100/- to Rs.500/- from the traders in Hosur for stamping their weighing machines which are used for business purpose. Further during his tenure as Deputy Inspector of Labour, Krishnagiri, from 31.7.2010 to 1.5.2012 he had collected Rs.500/- to Rs.1,500/- from the petrol bunks in Kelamangalam, Royakottai and Udhannapalli, while inspecting and stamping the pumps used for the supply of petrol to the vehicles in the petrol bunk. This is a misconduct.Charge No.2:He has violated Rule 20 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules 1973. 20[1] Every Member of the service shall at all times maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and shall do nothing which is unbecoming of a member of the service.” 4. On receipt of the same, the petitioner submitted his explanation, on 30.08.2013. Without being satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, Enquiry Officer was appointed on 31.10.2013. The Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry and submitted his report to the disciplinary authority, on 08.09.2014. It was served on the petitioner along with a show cause notice. On receipt of the same, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 12.12.2014. However, he was issued an order of punishment only 20.09.2022, thereby imposed punishment of reduction to lower post i.e., Assistant Inspector of Labour, for a period of seven years with effect from date of issue of the order. The period of reduction is ordered with cumulative effect i.e., to postpone his future increment for seven years and after restoration to the original post. Page 3 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26743 of 2022Further, it allowed the petitioner to draw the pay that he had last drawn as Assistant Inspector of Labour before his promotion as Deputy Inspector of Labour and the period of reduction to be reckoned is inclusive of intervals spent on leave.5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the charge memo was issued in the year 2013, the petitioner was imposed with the above said punishment after a period of nine years. In fact, the petitioner was served with enquiry report in the year 2014 and immediately, the petitioner submitted his explanation. Therefore, the petitioner was under impression that his explanation was accepted and he was exonerated from all the charges. All of a sudden, after a period of nine years, the petitioner was imposed with the impugned punishment. Though there is no evidence to hold both the charges as proved, the Enquiry Officer held the charges are partially proved. It is unheard insofar as corruption charges.6. A perusal of the counter and the submission made by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents revealed that the petitioner was charged with regard to the allegation of illegal gratification and Page 4 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26743 of 2022money ranging from Rs.100/- to Rs.500/- from the traders in Hosur for stamping their weighing machines which are used for business purpose. Further during his tenure as Deputy Inspector of Labour, Krishnagiri, from 31.7.2010 to 1.5.2012 and he had also collected Rs.500/- to Rs.1,500/- from the petrol bunks in Kelamangalam, Royakottai and Udhannapalli, while inspecting and stamping the pumps used for the supply of petrol to the vehicles in the petrol bunk. 7. Therefore, the preliminary enquiry was conducted under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, and the petitioner was issued with charge memo. According to the Enquiry Officer, both the charges are partly proved and the petitioner was served with enquiry report. He was called upon to submit his explanation. The explanation was not found satisfied and as such, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of reduction to lower post viz., post in which he was directly recruited vide G.O.(2D) No.57, Labour and Employment (E1) Department, dated 09.12.2016. It was further revealed that the petitioner was arrested pursuant to the registration of FIR in Crime No.2/AC/2018 dated 10.01.2018 for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. Due to which, the petitioner was placed under suspension from service with effect from Page 5 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26743 of 202209.01.2018. Subsequently, the petitioner challenged the order of suspension in W.P.No.19037 of 2021 before this Court and to direct the first respondent therein to reinstate the petitioner in service with all attendant benefits. This Court, by an order dated 09.09.2021, directed to reinstate the petitioner in a non-sensitive post. Aggrieved by the same, writ appeal was filed and the same was also dismissed. After filing contempt petition, the first respondent had revoked his order of suspension and reinstated him to service as Labour Welfare Officer, Public Works Department Workshop, Chennai.8. Therefore, the arrest of the petitioner is no way connected with the charge memo issued in the year 2013. There is absolutely no explanation for the delay in passing the final order after a period of nine years from the date of issuance of charge.9. Further, a perusal of records also revealed that the Enquiry Officer concluded as follows:- ,e;epiyapy; cj;jdg;gs;sp _ ghyh$p V$d;rP!;.“ Cwr/gp/Oyh; epWtdj;jpd; nkyhsh; rhl;rp jpU/ E}h; mfkJ $hd; vd;gth; y";r xHpg;g[j;Jiw Kd;g[ mspj;j thf;FK:yj;jpd; mog;gilapYk;. ,t;tprhuizapd; nghJ mth; mspj;j gpukhd thf;F K:yk; kw;Wk; mth; FWf;F tprhuizapd; nghJ muRj; jug;g[ mYtyh; kw;Wk; Fw;wk; rhl;lg;gl;l mYtyh; Kd;dpiyapy; Page 6 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26743 of 2022bjhptpj;j rhl;rpa';fs; Mfpait midj;Jnk Fw;wr;rhl;L 1 kw;Wk; 2 y; Fwpg;gpl;l Fw;wr;rhl;Lfis Vw;Fk; tifapy; mike;Js;sJ/ Fw;wk; rhl;lg;gl;l mYtyh; fpUc&;zfpupapy; 12/7/07 Kjy; 30/7/10 Koa Kj;jpiu Ma;thsuhf gzpg[upe;j fhyj;jpYk;. 31/7/10 Kjy; 1/5/12 Koa bjhHpyhsh; Jiz Ma;thsuhf gzpg[upa[k; nghJ gzpapy; fhzg;gl;l FiwghLfs; Fwpj;J ,U gjtpfspy; Fw;wk; rhl;lg;gl;Ls;sjpy; Kj;jpiu Ma;thsuhf gzpg[upe;j fhyj;jpy; mth; kPJ Rkj;jg;gl;l Fw;wr;rhl;Lfs; epU:gpf;fg;gltpy;iy vd nkny Kot[ bra;ag;gl;l epiyapy; mth; bjhHpyhsh; Jiz Ma;thsuhf 31/7/10 Kjy; 1/5/12 tiu gzpg[upe;j bghGJ Fw;wr;rhl;oy; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s Fw;wr; rhl;Lfs; Fwpj;J cj;jdg;gs;sp _ ghyh$p V$d;rP!; epWtdj;jpd; nkyhsh; mspj;j y";r xHpg;g[j;Jiw tprhuiz thf;FK:yk;. ,t;tprhuizapd; nghJ mspj;j gpukhd thf;FK:yk; kw;Wk; FWf;F tprhuiz Mfpatw;wpd; mog;gilapYk; nkYk; ,jid kWj;J Fw;wk; rhl;lg;gl;l mYtyh; TWk; fhuz';fis epU:gpf;f jug;gpw;F nghjpa mtfhrk; tH';fpa[k; mtuJ jug;g[ thjj;jpid epU:gpf;f ,aw;if epajp nfhl;ghLfSf;F cl;gl;L gy re;jh;g;g';fs; tH';fpa[k; mth; chpa rhl;rpa';fisnah. rhd;whtz';fisnah bfhz;L Kd;dpWj;jp epU:gpf;ftpy;iy vd;gjhy; muRj; jug;gpy; Fw;wk; rhl;lg;gl;Ls;s mYtyh; jpU/J/byl;Rkp ehuhazd; vd;gth; kPJ Rkj;jg;gl;Ls;s Fw;wr;rhl;L bjhHpyhsh; Jiz Ma;thsuhf mth; gzpg[upe;j fhyj;jpw;F kl;Lk; bghUe;Jk; tifapy; epU:gpf;fg;gl;Ls;sjhy; Fw;wr;rhl;Lfs; gFjpahf epU:gpf;fg;gl;ljhf Kot[ bra;fpnwd;/”10. Though the Enquiry Officer found that the disciplinary authority failed to prove the allegation, except while the petitioner was serving at Krishnagiri District, he held the charges partially proved. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, there is a question Page 7 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26743 of 2022of proving the charges partially in the corruption allegations. Only on the basis of statement made by one of the petrol bunks, that too without any evidence, the Enquiry Officer came to the above conclusion. Further, there is absolutely no explanation for the delay in passing the final order. The delay in passing the final order caused grave prejudice to the petitioner. Keeping the official under charges of corruption and disputing his/her integrity would cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the officer concerned. Therefore, it should be avoided not only in the interests of the Government employee but in public interest and also in the interests of inspiring confidence in the minds of the Government employees. As a matter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the petitioner due to the protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much more than the punishment.11. It is not the case of the disciplinary authority that the petitioner protracted the disciplinary proceedings. Admittedly, the enquiry was conducted in the year 2014 and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report. Thereafter, it was served on the petitioner and on receipt of the same, the petitioner also submitted his explanation for the enquiry report, as on 12.12.2014. But the disciplinary authority did not pass any order on the enquiry report as well as the Page 8 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26743 of 2022explanation submitted by the petitioner, till the month of September, 2022. Only on 20.09.2022, the order of punishment was issued on the petitioner.12. Therefore, impugned orders cannot be sustained as against the petitioner and are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the proceedings of the first respondent vide G.O.[3D] No.76, Labour Welfare and Skill Development [E1] Department dated 20.09.2022 and the order of the second respondent vide E4/30303/2022 dated 20.09.2022, are hereby quashed.13. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.06.02.2024Internet: YesIndex : Yes/NoSpeaking/Non Speaking ordermnPage 9 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26743 of 2022 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,mnTo1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Labour Welfare and Skill Development, [E1] Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.2. The Commissioner of Labour, Labour Department, Chennai-6.W.P.No.26743 of 202206.02.2024Page 10 of 10