Published On: Sat, Jun 27th, 2015

HC slaps Rs 25,000 fine on woman treasury employee for stealing question and key answer papers for promotion

Madurai: The Madras High Court today slapped a fine of Rs 25,000 on a woman treasury employee for filing a case against double punishment given to her for stealing the question and answer papers for the Accountant Promotion examination and scoring centum in it.

Representative Photo

Representative Photo

Dismissing the petition of one V Tamizhmozhi, a treasury employee in Theni district, Justice S Vaidhyanathan directed her to pay the fine amount to a Muslim orphanage home at High Ground in Tirunelveli.

The fraud came to light during the official probe. On August 8 2012, she was barred from writing any such exam for five years. On November 29 that year, her increment for one year was stopped.

The petitioner was appointed as temporary junior assistant in 2003. She cleared the Public service examination and her service was regularised in 2009.

Tamizhmozhi wrote the exam for the post of accountant in 2010 and secured cent per cent. Officials got suspicious, conducted an inquiry and found she had stolen the question and key answer papers and had written the examination.

The petitioner filed a case against giving her double punishment for an offence and sought to quash the punishments.

Justice Vaidhyanathan said the petitioner’s offence was serious and could not be taken lightly and directed that she not be appointed in any important or senstive post as there was a possibility of her correcting the documents.

The judge noted that the punishments had been given to her by two different departments — Finance and Examinations.

If these had been given by the same department, then her plea could be accepted.

The judge said that since the petitioner had cleared her first exam genuinely, her routine departmental promotion could not be denied. She was barred from writing promotion-related exams conducted by the service commission and punishment and cutting of increment are enough for her, he said.

“Even if routine promotions are given to the petitioner, she should not be allowed to occupy any senstive post,” the Judge said.


About the Author