Judgment :- The Original Application in O.A.No.4983 of 2002 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") is now Writ Petition in W.P.No.7550 of 2007 before this Court. 2. The petitioner was employed as Assistant Jailor during the year 1997. The petitioner was retired from service in the year 2006, after reaching the age of superannuation. Photographs were published in the Tamil weekly magazine, Nakkeeran, in its issue (10-17) June 1997, showing the inmates of the Prison in Lalkudi were playing cards, fighting each other with knife and they were reading obscene magazines. It is the case of the Department that one Mr.Amarnath Singh, Grade-I Warder, who was involved in taking Ganja within the jail and who faced disciplinary action for the same, conspired with another Grade-I Warder Mr.Palanisamy to bring disrepute to the Institution. Pursuant to the conspiracy hatched, Mr.Amarnath Singh and Mr.Palanisamy had clandestinely taken camera, knives, obscene books and play cards, with the help of Mr.Pichaimuthu and Mr.Syed Ayub, Grade-I Warders. The camera was handed over to one Mr.Sundar, Convict No.1446 and he took photos of other inmates. The aforesaid four persons made the inmates of the prison to act as if they were playing cards, fighting each other with knives, reading obscene books, etc. The said acting was photographed by one Mr.Sundar, Convict No.1446 and these photos were published in Nakkeeran. The aforesaid four persons wanted to bring disrepute to the Institution, by publishing the photos in the Tamil Weekly magazine Nakkeeran. 3. The petitioner was issued with a charge sheet dated 09.08.1997 under Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Appeal and Disciplinary) Rules. The crux of the allegation was that the petitioner, being the Supervisor, responsible for supervising the inmates and warders of the Central Prison at Lalkudi, acted negligently resulting in photos being taken within the prison and subsequently published in the magazine. 4. An enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Madurai. The Enquiry Officer held the charges were proved and based on the findings, the petitioner was removed from service by an order dated 08.05.2000 by the Inspector General of Prisons, Chennai. 5. The petitioner filed O.A.No.5639 of 2000 to quash the aforesaid order dated 08.05.2000. 4. An enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Madurai. The Enquiry Officer held the charges were proved and based on the findings, the petitioner was removed from service by an order dated 08.05.2000 by the Inspector General of Prisons, Chennai. 5. The petitioner filed O.A.No.5639 of 2000 to quash the aforesaid order dated 08.05.2000. On 20.03.2001, the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal quashed the order dated 08.05.2000 and felt that the punishment was too excessive and remanded the matter to respondents to consider the matter relating to the quantum of punishment, only. While passing such an order, the Tribunal directed the Department to reinstate the petitioner in service. Pursuant to the order of Tribunal, the petitioner was reinstated in service by an order dated 18.06.2001. Thereafter, he was issued with a notice dated 30.07.2001 by the Inspector General of Prisons, Chennai, to appear for a fresh enquiry. 6. The petitioner filed O.A.No.5761 of 2001 to quash the aforesaid notice dated 30.07.2001, as it is violative of the earlier order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.5639 of 2000, dated 20.03.2001. The Tribunal allowed the O.A.No.5761 of 2001 on 23.01.2002 and quashed the notice dated 30.07.2001 and directed the respondent to decide the quantum of punishment, after hearing the petitioner, as directed earlier by the Tribunal in the order in O.A.No.5639 of 2000, dated 20.03.2001. 7. The petitioner gave a representation dated 13.07.2002 enclosing the order dated 05.06.2002 in O.A.Nos.5190,5191,5625 and 5609 of 2000, wherein the Tribunal quashed the dismissal orders dismissing the four persons, who made arrangements for taking photographs inside the prison and made it published in the Nakkeeran, the Tamil weekly magazine. The Tribunal also awarded back-wages. It is stated that the said order was implemented and those four persons were reinstated and also were paid back-wages. Hence, the petitioner requested the respondent to drop the disciplinary proceeding, taking into account the aforesaid order dated 05.06.2002 of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. But the respondent passed an order dated 19.08.2002 imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for six months without cumulative effect. In view of imposition of punishment, consequential order was passed treating the period of suspension/removal as leave to which he was eligible. It is submitted hat this resulted in a serious loss, as his four years of service were not regularised. 8. In view of imposition of punishment, consequential order was passed treating the period of suspension/removal as leave to which he was eligible. It is submitted hat this resulted in a serious loss, as his four years of service were not regularised. 8. The petitioner filed O.A.No.4983 of 2002 (W.P.No.7550 of 2007) to quash the said order dated 19.08.2002 of the respondent and for a consequential direction to pay him monetary benefits thereon. 9. Heard Mr.Ravi Shanmugam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Muthukumar, learned Government Advocate for the respondent. 10. I have perused all the materials, including the reply affidavit filed by the respondents. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order failed to take into account the order dated 05.06.2002 of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.Nos.5190,5191,5265 and 5609 of 2000, when the same was enclosed by him along with his letter dated 13.07.2002 to the respondent to consider the matter on punishment, based on the said order of the Tribunal. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that while the Jailor, who was placed under suspension initially for lack of supervision and responsible for photograph being published in the Nakkeeran, Tamil weekly magazine, was not proceeded further and no charge sheet was issued and no punishment was imposed on him. It is submitted that this aspect was also not taken note of by the respondent. 13. I have perused the impugned order. The respondent failed to take note of the judgment of the Tribunal dated 05.06.2002 in a batch of O.A.Nos.5190,5191,5265 and 5609 of 2000. The respondent also failed to take into account that the jailor was not imposed any punishment, though initially he was also placed under suspension, for lack of supervision. I am of the considered view that the aforesaid two issues are relevant to consider the punishment, if any, that has to be imposed. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that based on the impugned order, imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for six months without cumulative effect, the respondent passed another consequential order dated 08.02.2005 treating non employment period pursuant to suspension and the earlier removal order, as a leave period, for which he was eligible. In the result, the petitioners in service for about four years was not regularised and that has a serious effect on his pension. In the result, the petitioners in service for about four years was not regularised and that has a serious effect on his pension. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the concern of the petitioner is nonregularisation of the period of his non-employment resulting in serious consequences on his terminal benefits. In fact it is submitted that he was willing to take the punishment of increment cut without cumulative effect for six months. The petitioner will be satisfied if the period of non-employment is regularised notionally and without even any monetary benefits and the matter may be put an end, in the light of the judgment dated 05.06.2002 in O.A.Nos.5190,5191, 5265 and 5609 of 2000. The fact that the Jailor was not imposed any punishment is also relevant in this regard. 15. In my considered view, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is well founded. As already stated, the impugned order failed to take into account the order dated 05.06.2002 of the Tribunal in O.A.Nos.5190,5191,5265 and 5609 of 2000. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the main culprits against whom the Department proceeded for publishing the photos in the Nakkeeran, the Tamil weekly magazine were reinstated with back-wages. Further, the Jailor, who is responsible for supervising the entire prison, was not imposed with punishment. Furthermore, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the nonregularisation of period of non-employment due to suspension/removal resulted in serious consequences as it affects the terminal benefits. 16. In these circumstances, the impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the respondent to pass a fresh order, taking into account the order dated 05.06.2002 in O.A.Nos. 5190,5191,5265 and 5609 of 2000 and also the fact that the jailor was not imposed any punishment and the non-regularisation of the nonemployment period due to suspension /dismissal resulted in serious consequences in the matter of pension. The respondent is directed to pass a fresh order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 17. The writ petition is allowed. No costs.