Judgment : 1. The petitioner was working as Warder Grade-II at the Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai. He was initially appointed on 25.03.1998 and has been working continuously without any blemish whatsoever in service. While so, a charge memo dated 02.07.2004 was issued to the petitioner by the Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore / 4th respondent herein and the same was issued for his misconduct, while he was undergoing training in the Warders Training School, Vellore during the relevant point of time. 2. The crux of the charge against the petitioner is that the petitioner as well as yet another Warder Thiru Solomon used abusive words against the higher officials in front of the Jailer Thiru Ramamoorthy. An enquiry was conducted. Thereafter, the petitioner was dismissed from service by an order dated 05.08.2004 by the 4th respondent. 3. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of dismissal before the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent dismissed the appeal on 19.08.2004, confirming the order of the 4th respondent. Subsequently, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent also rejected the revision petition on 20.12.2004. Thereafter, a review petition was submitted to the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent vide its impugned order dated 18.12.2006 set aside the punishment of dismissal from service and modified the same into stoppage of increment for 5 years with cumulative effect. The petitioner has fled this writ petition to quash the aforesaid order dated 18.12.2006. 4. The respondents have filed a counter refuting the allegations made in the affidavit. It is stated in the counter that the Government took a lenient view, though the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) gave its opinion that punishment imposed on the petitioner was proportionate to the gravity of charges. The Government disagreed with the views of TNPSC and interfered with the punishment of dismissal, as the Government felt it to be excessive and therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that despite sufficient evidence to prove that One Mr. Abdul Yousuff, Chief Trainer in the Training School also abused all the Warders, no action was taken against him and he was allowed to retire from service. Thus, there is no reason for the 1st respondent to impose such punishment. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that despite sufficient evidence to prove that One Mr. Abdul Yousuff, Chief Trainer in the Training School also abused all the Warders, no action was taken against him and he was allowed to retire from service. Thus, there is no reason for the 1st respondent to impose such punishment. It is submitted that stoppage of increment for 5 years with cumulative effect is a major penalty and the same would affect his pensionary and other retiral benefits. It is stated that the petitioner did not use any unparliamentary words as alleged and it was Thiru Solomon and Thiru Abdul Yousuff, who used abusive words. The petitioner only demanded payment of wages in a fit of anger, since it was not paid to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that if the punishment is modified to “Without Cumulative Effect”, the petitioner may not have much objection, particularly when no action was taken against Thiru Abdul Yousuff, who was responsible for the entire episode. 7. Per contra, learned Additional Government Pleader reiterated the stand taken in the counter, stating that the 1st respondent differed with the opinion of TNPSC and interfered with the punishment of dismissal from service, thus, prayed for dismissal of this writ petition. 8. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side. 9. The charge against the petitioner was that on 01.07.2004, when some instructions were given by the Jailer to the Warders on that date relating to the visit of the Superintendent of Prisons, Thiru Solomon used abusive words against the Officers. It was alleged that the petitioner also interfered and in a fit of anger stated that no salary was paid and other benefits were also not given, thereby demanded Rs.500/- to meet the situation. The petitioner cannot be held responsible for the abusive words used by Thiru Solomon and the words used by the petitioner cannot be termed as abusive. The following words (as translated from Tamil) were used by Thiru Solomon as alleged in the charge memo: “Fuck your mother” The words used by the petitioner as stated in the charge memo are as follows: “TAMIL” 10. The following words (as translated from Tamil) were used by Thiru Solomon as alleged in the charge memo: “Fuck your mother” The words used by the petitioner as stated in the charge memo are as follows: “TAMIL” 10. It is the case of the petitioner that on the same date, Thiru Abdul Yousuff, Chief Trainer of the Training School used abusive words against all the Warders and the same is not disputed as seen from the impugned order. But, admittedly no action was taken against the said Abdul Yousuff and to the contrary, action was taken against the petitioner as well as Solomon. Both were dismissed from service and ultimately, the order of dismissal was modified into “Stoppage of increment for 5 years with cumulative effect” for both of them. 11. It is stated that the said Solomon was subsequently dismissed from service due to yet another misconduct. The petitioner has questioned the impugned order of the 1st respondent passed in G.O.Ms.No.1207, Home (Prisons-2) Department dated 18.12.2006 on two grounds, i.e.; 1. firstly, no action was taken against Thiru Abdul Yousuff, who was responsible for the entire episode. Though Abdul Yousuff was the higher Official, some action should have been taken against him for using abusive words, but to the shock and surprise, no action was taken against him and he was allowed to retire from service; 2. secondly, Thiru Solomon, who used abusive words was imposed with the punishment of stoppage of increment for 5 years with cumulative effect and the petitioner, who did not use any such words cannot be punished in the same line like that of Solomon. 12. The paragraph no.4 of the impugned order relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is extracted herein as under : “TAMIL” As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the 1st respondent has admitted that no action was taken against Abdul Yousuff, inspite of his usage of abusive words against all the Warders. Furthermore, the 1st respondent sought opinion from the TNPSC on the punishment as per the relevant rules. TNPSC gave its opinion to the effect that the punishment imposed on the petitioner was proportionate to the gravity of charges. But the Government differed with the views of TNPSC and interfered with the punishment. In this regard, the following passage in para-3 of the counter filed before this Court is extracted hereunder: “... TNPSC gave its opinion to the effect that the punishment imposed on the petitioner was proportionate to the gravity of charges. But the Government differed with the views of TNPSC and interfered with the punishment. In this regard, the following passage in para-3 of the counter filed before this Court is extracted hereunder: “... The Commission in its view stated that the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the petitioner was proportionate to the gravity of charges and advised the Government to reject the petition as devoid of merits. The petition of Thiru. M. Jeyakumar was examined with the connected records and in the light of the above views of the Commission, it was considered that the punishment of dismissal awarded to the petitioner was disproportionate to the charges. The Government therefore, decided to deviate from the views of Commission and to cancel the punishment of dismissal awarded to the petitioner viz., Thiru. M. Jeyakumar, Warder Grade II and on his reinstatement to impose on him the following punishment:- “Stoppage of increment for five years with cumulative effect. The leave period other than Casual Leave will extend his punishment and the punishment shall have an effect on his pension.” Accordingly orders were issued in G.O.Ms.No.1207, Home dated 18.12.2006.” Therefore, it is true that the 1st respondent / Government took a lenient view as contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader and modified the punishment. But, I am of the view that the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner has some force. While the Government admitted that no action was taken against Thiru Abdul Yousuff, when he was found guilty of using abusive words against all Warders, there is no justification for the 1st respondent to impose major penalty against the petitioner. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it would have been a different matter, if a minor penalty was given for using certain words in a fit of anger and more particularly, there was some reason for his anger, since admittedly no salary was disbursed to him, which was the outcome of his anger as alleged in the charge memo. Likewise, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner cannot be equated with Thiru Solomon in the matter of imposition of punishment, since the words used by the petitioner is relating to the demand of salary and other benefits. Likewise, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner cannot be equated with Thiru Solomon in the matter of imposition of punishment, since the words used by the petitioner is relating to the demand of salary and other benefits. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner cannot be imposed with the major penalty of stoppage of increment for 5 years with cumulative effect , which could seriously affect his pensionary and other benefits. 14. Thus, I am of the view that those aspects were not taken into account by the 1st respondent while modifying the punishment and the petitioner should be given lesser punishment as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner than Thiru Solomon. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this Court can itself modify the punishment into the one, namely, stoppage of increment for 5 years without cumulative effect or impose any other minor punishment. But, I am not inclined to do such exercise, as it comes under the purview of the 1st respondent to do so. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order of the 1st respondent dated 18.12.2006, I hereby remit the matter back to the 1st respondent to pass a fresh order in the light of the above said observation and impose any other minor punishment in the place of major punishment. The 1st respondent is directed to complete such exercise within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 15. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.