JUDGMENT : Subramonium Prasad, J. 1. Instant writ appeal is directed against the order, dated 22/3/2019, passed in W.P. No. 10249 of 2014. 2. Facts in brief are as under:- 2.1. Respondent/writ petitioner was appointed as Gang Mazdoor, in Highways Department, at Tiruvannamalai Sub Division (South). He was suspended from service, on 8/4/2011, by the Assistant Divisional Engineer (Highways, Construction and Maintaining), Tiruvannamalai, third appellant herein, on the ground that he accompanied a MLA and was campaigning for the MLA in the Elections. 2.2. In his reply, the respondent/writ petitioner stated that since his mother was not well, he had rushed his mother to the Government Hospital, wherein he was informed that if he gets a letter from a local MLA, it will be easy to get an admission, in the Special Ward, in the Government Hospital. He went to the Office of the MLA and he was informed that the MLA had gone out for campaigning. The writ petitioner contacted the P.A to MLA, for getting the recommendation letter. The P.A who took the respondent/writ petitioner to the MLA and obtained the signatures of the MLA on the recommendation letter. 2.3. During the suspension, a domestic enquiry was carried out. The Enquiry Officer, found that charges have been proved. Disciplinary Authority had proposed to give punishment, for stoppage of increment, for a period of three years, with cumulative effect and reinstatement into service. 2.4. In view of the fact that mis-conduct had taken place during the time when the Election process were on, the proposed punishment was forwarded to the District Election Officer, to take an opinion about punishment. District Election Officer, opined that since the nature of charges were grave, respondent may not be reinstated in service and hence he must be dismissed from service. 2.5. Based on the opinion of the District Election Officer, the Divisional Engineer (Highways, Construction and Maintaining), Tiruvannamalai, second respondent, dismissed the respondent from service. 3. Being aggrieved, respondent has filed W.P. No. 10249 of 2014. Vide, order, dated 22/3/2019. During the hearing, the writ petitioner filed an affidavit that he shall not repeat the same mistake and will never campaign for anybody else. The learned Single Judge, on the basis of punishments imposed on similar charges framed against other persons, reinstated the respondent in service, without backwages. Relevant portion of the order reads thus:- "5. Vide, order, dated 22/3/2019. During the hearing, the writ petitioner filed an affidavit that he shall not repeat the same mistake and will never campaign for anybody else. The learned Single Judge, on the basis of punishments imposed on similar charges framed against other persons, reinstated the respondent in service, without backwages. Relevant portion of the order reads thus:- "5. Considering the period of service rendered by the petitioner in the respondent/Department and also taking into consideration of the undertaking affidavit filed by the petitioner's counsel, this Court is inclined to pass the following order:- (i). The undertaking affidavit filed by the petitioner's counsel is taken on record. (ii). The proceedings issued by the second respondent in No. Se.Mu.Ka. No. 612/2011/Kamukkam, dated 1/4/2014 is quashed. (iii). The second respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner is service within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iv). The petitioner shall not participate in any of the political activities in future, as undertook by him in the undertaking affidavit. (v). As per the undertaking affidavit, the petitioner is not entitled to claim backwages or continuity of service for the non-working period." 4. Government has assailed the abovesaid order, in the instant Writ Appeal. 5. Heard Mr. V. Jayaprakash Narayanan, learned Government Pleader for the appellants and Mr. C. Prakasam for Caveator. 6. This Court, by an order, dated 7/11/2019, directed the Government Pleader to find out the Rule position, as to the powers which have been vested with the District Election officer, to deal with the disciplinary proceedings in these matters. 7. Heard Mr. V. Jayaprakash Narayanan, learned Government Pleader for the appellants and Mr. C. Prakasam for Caveator. 8. Mr. V. Jayaprakash Narayanan, learned Government Pleader has filed six documents, stating that they bring out the Rule position. Letter dated 8/12/2009 had been sent by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training) to the Chief Secretaries to all the States and UT Administratives. The said letter reads as under:- "To The Chief Secretaries of all the State Governments/Administrations Subject: Disciplinary proceedings against officials connected with the conduct of elections-suspension ordered by the Commission withdrawal of suspension regarding. Sir, I am directed to refer to the Department of Personnel and Training's. letter No. 11012/7/98-Estt. The said letter reads as under:- "To The Chief Secretaries of all the State Governments/Administrations Subject: Disciplinary proceedings against officials connected with the conduct of elections-suspension ordered by the Commission withdrawal of suspension regarding. Sir, I am directed to refer to the Department of Personnel and Training's. letter No. 11012/7/98-Estt. (A) dated 07.11.2000 on the above mentioned subject and to say that the Election Commission has informed that there have been some cases where the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Election Commission has not been/respected by certain disciplinary authorities in letter and spirit. Also, in some cases, the officials who were placed under suspension on the orders of the Commission were reinstated by the State Government unilaterally without consulting the Commission. The Commission has accordingly desired to reiterate the position regarding disciplinary jurisdiction of the Commission. 2. In view of the above a!! disciplinary authorities may be advised to respect the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Election Commission and obtain the concurrence of the Commission before reinstating the officers who were suspended on the orders of the Commission during the period when the officers fare\ under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Commissions Yours faithfully. (C.B. Paliwal) Joint Secretary to the Government of India" 9. This Court, finds that the concurrence of the Election Commission is to be taken only when the Government Officers are placed under suspension, in connection with the conduct of Election and when the suspension is ordered by the Commission. This letter mandates that concurrence of the Commission must be taken before reinstating the Officers, who were suspended on the orders of the Commission during the period when the Officers are under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Commission. None of the other communication filed by the petitioner would suggest that even in cases where the Election Commission has not passed the direction for initiating disciplinary proceedings opinion of the Election Commission must be sought. The learned Government Pleader also relied on an instruction dated 18.04.2011, sent by the Chief Electoral Officer to the District Election Officers. Para 5 of the said instruction reads as under:- "5. I am also directed to inform you that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Government employees for their lapses should not be finalized without getting the prior concurrence of the Election Commission of India." This instructions are applicable only to prevent harassment by the State Government against innocent employees. 10. Para 5 of the said instruction reads as under:- "5. I am also directed to inform you that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Government employees for their lapses should not be finalized without getting the prior concurrence of the Election Commission of India." This instructions are applicable only to prevent harassment by the State Government against innocent employees. 10. In the present case, the disciplinary proceedings have been taken against the respondent, on the ground that he was canvassing for a MLA. In view of the above, this Court, is of the opinion that there was no necessity to take the need of the District Election Officer, with regard to the punishment sought to be imposed on the employee. 11. This Court does not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge and no interference is called for. The Government need not have obtained the opinion of the District Election Officer and the punishment of dismissal from service was unwarranted. Resultantly, the instant writ appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 23665 of 2019 is closed.