Judgment :- 1. The petitioner who was employed as a Block Resource Teacher Educator, has filed the present writ petition challenging an order dated 3.5.2011, wherein and by which he was imposed with penalty of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect by the second respondent Joint Director of School Education (Personnel) and also the order dated 11.7.2011 issued by the first respondent rejecting his appeal. 2. It is seen from the records that the petitioner was caught red-handed by the Chief Educational Officer while writing examination in English conducted by the Teachers Recruitment Board (TRB). The petitioner for writing BRTE English examination, did not take any permission. Therefore, the Chief Superintendent of the St.Annes Higher Secondary School, Krishnagiri had seized the OMR sheet, question paper and the hall ticket. The petitioner had stated that he wrote the examination for getting experience in the examination and he did not know while in service he should not write the examination. Therefore, he had requested for cancellation of the examination and also that he will not commit any such mistakes in future. But, however, the petitioner was placed under suspension by an order dated 16.2.2010. In the suspension order, it was stated that while writing BRTE examination conducted by the TRB on 14.2.2010, he did not seek permission. He was also caught red-handed by the department while helping co-students to write the examination by way of ticking answers in the question paper. 3. The petitioner sent a reply stating that he has no ulterior motive in writing the examination and only to develop the knowledge, he wrote the examination. He will not indulge any such activities in future. Thereafter, the District Educational Officer, Hosur was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. The petitioner's suspension was revoked by an order dated 6.5.2010. The District Educational Officer who was the Enquiry Officer, found that there was no necessity for the petitioner to write the examination as the examination was conducted only for recruiting teachers for the post of Block Resource Teachers Educators. He had applied to the TRB for the said post and had obtained hall ticket and wrote the English examination. He was caught red-handed by the Chief Superintendent and the Hall Supervisor. Therefore, he had violated the conduct rules 20 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules. He had applied to the TRB for the said post and had obtained hall ticket and wrote the English examination. He was caught red-handed by the Chief Superintendent and the Hall Supervisor. Therefore, he had violated the conduct rules 20 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules. The petitioner gave a further explanation stating that he wrote the examination after obtaining hall ticket in his name. But it is alleged that he wrote the examination for some body else. Therefore, proper enquiry can be held. 4. The second respondent being the disciplinary authority found that since the charges levelled against the petitioner have been proved and the charges are severe, considering that he has been in service now, his increment can be cut for three years with cumulative effect. He was also informed that he can file an appeal to the first respondent. Accordingly, the petitioner filed an appeal on 3.6.2011 to the first respondent. The first respondent had rejected his appeal and held that it was not the competitive examination to enable the petitioner to get trained in the examination. It was the examination for selecting teachers by TRB. He has accepted the charge that he had applied for the said post and got the hall ticket to write the examination. The petitioner has not satisfactorily explained his conduct. It is not clear whether he came to help others or to write as proxy for others. But nevertheless since the petitioner's explanation was not accepted, the enquiry officer's report cannot be found fault with. Hence the appeal was rejected. 5. The petitioner's contention was that in an identical circumstance, an another P.G. Teacher by name Sivashankar who was also found guilty for writing such examination, was let off with a warning by proceedings dated 16.8.2011. Therefore, the petitioner should be given similar relief. It is discriminatory to single out the petitioner by giving different treatment. 6. This court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The contention that only on suspicion he was punished cannot be accepted. He had already given a statement that he will not indulge in such activities in future and therefore it cannot be said that it was a case of no evidence and punishment was given only on suspicion. The fact of another teacher was let off with a warning cannot be a consolation for the petitioner to claim similar treatment. He had already given a statement that he will not indulge in such activities in future and therefore it cannot be said that it was a case of no evidence and punishment was given only on suspicion. The fact of another teacher was let off with a warning cannot be a consolation for the petitioner to claim similar treatment. May be it is a case where the first respondent Director will have to take notice of the liberal manner in which that teacher by name Sivashankar was let off and he can also exercise his-suo motu power. But on that ground the petitioner cannot be let off. 7. It is admitted that the petitioner was the Block Resources Teacher Educator. He ought not to have applied for the same post which was already held by him. He had obtained the hall ticket and claimed that it was for getting experience. The entire explanation is shrouded with mystery. The petitioner has no place to be found in the examination hall to write the examination for the post which was already held by him. The explanation was not rightly accepted by the respondents. It is not the competitive examination for him to prove his ability. On the other hand it was for some other ulterior motive which the petitioner alone is aware. Even if there was no proof that he had entered the hall for helping others or he was impersonating, the fact that he went to hall for some other unexplained reason is a sufficient ground to punish the petitioner. As a Government servant, he will have to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and his conduct need not only be in discharge of his duties, but even outside he must exhibit similar conduct. 8. The Supreme Court vide its judgment in DayaShankar v. High Court of Allahabad reported in (1987) 3 SCC 1 has held in paragraph 11 as follows: "11. In our opinion the conclusion reached by the Inquiry Officer that the petitioner used unfair means is fully justified. No amount of denial could take him away from the hard facts revealed. The conduct of the petitioner is undoubtedly unworthy of a judicial officer. Judicial officer cannot have two standards, one in the court and another outside the court. They must have only one standard of rectitude, honesty and integrity. No amount of denial could take him away from the hard facts revealed. The conduct of the petitioner is undoubtedly unworthy of a judicial officer. Judicial officer cannot have two standards, one in the court and another outside the court. They must have only one standard of rectitude, honesty and integrity. They cannot act even remotely unworthy of the office they occupy. The second contention urged for the petitioner also fails and is rejected." 9. In the light of the above, the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition stands closed. 10. Since the petitioner had expressed his grievance about another teacher being let off for a similar misconduct with a black mark, the first respondent is hereby directed to look into the issue and take appropriate action and if necessary he can invoke his suo motu power after due notice. He must note that there is growing irregularities by trained teachers, which is not conducive to the field of education.