Madras High Court
State Of Tamil Nadu vs K.Balasubramanian on 10 March, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.450 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 10.03.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)No.450 of 2019
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.3726 of 2019
1.State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Commercial Taxes and Registration Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Inspector General of Registration,
Registration Department,
Chennai – 600 028.
3.The Commissioner for Disciplinary Proceedings
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings,
5/1842/A, Trichy Road,
Market Committee Complex,
Ramanthapuram,
Coimbatore – 641 045. ... Appellants
Vs.
K.Balasubramanian ... Respondent
Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.2752 of 2014, dated
25.07.2018.
1/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.450 of 2019
For Appellants : Mr.K.Sathiya Singh
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.M.Purushothaman
*****
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)
This appeal has been preferred by the appellants challenging
the order of the learned Single Judge, who upon going through the
relevant records, was pleased to set aside the Government Order,
dismissing the respondent from service, while holding the charges are
proved.
2.Charges have been framed against the respondent on the
ground that he facilitated collection of money from his subordinate
officials apart from having possession of a sum of Rs.25,000/- from his
place of residence. On behalf of the Department, 15 witnesses have been
examined while marking 6 documents. 10 Material Objects were also
marked. The Tribunal held that the charges framed against the
respondent were proved. The first appellant concurred with the views of
the Tribunal and after following due procedure, passed the impugned
Government Order.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.450 of 2019
3.The learned Single Judge held that there was absolutely no
material to implicate the respondent, as witnesses spoke the otherwise.
The amount received from the respondent was also taken from his house.
Even as per Form-II annexed to Rule 7(3) of the Tamil Nadu Government
Servants Conduct Rules, the said amount is permissible in the possession
of the delinquent officer. Therefore, this being the case of no evidence,
the charges levelled against the respondent, leading to an order of
dismissal, cannot be sustained. Incidentally, it was held that though a
criminal case was contemplated, the same was not proceeded with the
registration of the F.I.R., probably for want of evidence.
4.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for
the appellants submitted that considering the seriousness involved, the
learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered with the impugned
order. What is required is a preponderance of probability. The
respondent has not accounted for the amount in his custody. This Court
cannot act like an appellate authority to interfere with the findings of
fact.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.450 of 2019
5.Mr.M.Purushothaman, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent submitted that as rightly held by the learned Single Judge it is
a case of no evidence. Duty is enjoined upon the appellants to prove the
charges. None other witnesses spoke in tune with the charges framed.
Thus, there is no perversity in the order passed by the learned Single
Judge, warranting interference.
6.Law it is trite that in a departmental proceedings, it is for the
Department to prove the charges. What is required is preponderance of
probability. However, all the witnesses examined did not speak in favour
of the prosecution. There is absolutely no material to implicate the
respondent. The learned Single Judge rightly held that mere possession
of Rs.25,000/-, that too, recovered from the residence would not mean to
the charges have been proved. The contemplation of a criminal case
proposed was also dropped for want of evidence.
7.In such view of the matter, we do not find any reason to
interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly,
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.450 of 2019
this Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Inasmuch as the respondent has
reached the age of superannuation, the consequential reliefs will have to
be paid within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.
Index :Yes/No [M.M.S.J.,] [S.A.I.J.,]
Internet :Yes 10.03.2021
smn2
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order
may be utilized for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,
Commercial Taxes and Registration Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Inspector General of Registration,
Registration Department,
Chennai – 600 028.
3.The Commissioner for Disciplinary Proceedings
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings,
5/1842/A, Trichy Road,
Market Committee Complex,
Ramanthapuram,
Coimbatore – 641 045.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.450 of 2019
M.M.SUNDRESH, J.
AND
S.ANANTHI, J.
smn2
W.A.(MD)No.450 of 2019
10.03.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
