Madras High Court
V.Chinnasubramanian vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 4 October, 2021
W.A.No.1553 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.10.2021
Coram
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN
W.A.No.1553 of 2021
and
CMP No.9788 of 2021
V.Chinnasubramanian ... Appellant
vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by
Its Secretary to Government,
Tamil Development Religious
Endowment and Information Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 9.
Now Secretary to Government,
Tourism, Culture & Religious
Endownment Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 9.
2.The Commissioner
Hindu Religious & Chartiable
Endownment,
Administration Department,
Chennai – 34. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ appeal is filed under clause 15 of the Letter Patent against the
order of the learned single Judge dated 25.09.2020 made in W.P.No.11292
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1553 of 2021
of 2013.
For Appellant : Mr.Vediappan
For Respondents : Mr.K.Tippu Sultan
Government Advocate
*****
ORDER
(Judgement of the Court was made by S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.)
Instant writ appeal is directed against the order dated 25.09.2020
made in W.P.No.11292 of 2013.
2. According to the appellant, he joined the services of the
respondents as Grade III Executive Officer through Tamil Nadu Public
Service Commission (TNPSC) in 1973 and thereafter, he was promoted as
Executive Officer Grade II. While the appellant was working as Grade II
Executive Officer, he was posted at Uthamar Koil, Pitchandavar Koil
Village, Trichy District, which was under the control of the second
respondent herein. The appellant was placed under suspension on
30.12.1994 alleging that he has misappropriated the fund of the Temple to
the tune of Rs.1,75,000/-, which resulted in the issuance of charge memo
dated 06.01.1995. A case in Crime No.26/95 was also registered against the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1553 of 2021
appellant for the alleged offences under Section 406 and 420 of IPC.
3. The appellant had preferred O.A.No.2031 of 1997, challenging the
charge memo dated 06.01.1995 and there was no stay granted by the
Tribunal. Thereafter, by an order dated 28.09.2001, the Tribunal held that
the departmental proceedings cannot proceed till the disposal of the criminal
case and that the suspension can be revoked by posting the petitioner in a
non-sensitive post. According to the appellant, he was reinstated in service
in September 2004. It is further stated that the appellant questioned the FIR
in Crime No.26/1995 in Crl.OP.No.7724/2007, which was allowed by the
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court. Thereafter a request was made by
the appellant to the department to pass final orders in the departmental
proceedings. As the appellant was to retire on 31.05.2008, he was allowed
to go without prejudice to the departmental proceedings. Final orders have
been passed vide G.O.Ms.No.36 dated 15.02.2013 imposing the punishment
of reduction in the pension at Rs.450/- per month for two years and also
ordered recovery to the tune of Rs.1,58,281.50 from the Death cum
Retirement Gratuity and the said order was served on the appellant on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1553 of 2021
20.02.2013.
4. Aggrieved by the order, the writ petition has been preferred
contending that once the FIR has been quashed, the authority has no
jurisdiction to pass the impugned punishment and that he was allowed to
retire, of course, without prejudice to his rights and that there was a delay of
18 years in passing the impugned order without taking into consideration
the closure of the criminal case, which reveals non-application of mind.
Hence the learned single Judge ought to have interfered with the
punishment imposed on the appellant. Unfortunately the learned Single
Judge has dismissed the writ petition, which resulted in the present appeal.
5. The learned Government Advocate would submit that the criminal
case has been closed on technical reasons and that the departmental
proceedings could not be proceeded, only on the basis of the order of the
Tribunal wherein the proceedings are directed to be kept in abeyance and
after the disposal of the criminal case, in the departmental proceedings,
punishment was effected. Since the appellant was due to retire by that time,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1553 of 2021
he was allowed to retire, without prejudice to the respondent to proceed
under the pension rules. He would further submit that the
petitioner/appellant was trying to project that another staff is responsible for
the incident in question and it is incorrect to state that the appellant has been
made as the scape goat.
6. The averment of the appellant that the accountant of the Temple is
alone responsible was not believed by the Enquiry officer, who came to the
conclusion that the duty allotted to the Executive Officer is to deposit the
income from the temple into Bank, maintain Bank's account and
expenditure accounts, maintain the expenditure vouchers, etc., The next
averment that Clerk is responsible for forged entries, was not accepted.
Without any deposit into the bank, forged entries have been made, as if
amounts were deposited into bank. The Enquiry officer came to the
conclusion that the charges have been proved against the appellant in the
departmental enquiry. The learned Single Judge held that quashment of FIR
and the delay in passing the orders, cannot be cited for interference with the
order. It is further pointed out that the learned single Judge held that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1553 of 2021
criminal case and departmental proceedings can go simultaneously, but,
however after the order of the criminal case, departmental proceedings have
been concluded.
7. In the present case on hand, it is clearly established that there is a
misappropriation committed by the appellant, which requires serious
punishment, but however disciplinary authority has restricted the
punishment of stoppage of pension at Rs.450/- per month for a period of
two years, as he has already attained the age of superannuation.
8. Aggrieved by the order of the Disciplinary Authority, the
Appellant/Writ Petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.11292 of 2013.
The learned single Judge also relied upon an Apex Court's judgment to hold
that unless otherwise the punishment is shockingly disproportionate, in the
conscience of this Court, this Court cannot normally interfere with the
punishment of the officer.
9. It is to be noted that even though the punishment has been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1553 of 2021
imposed, definitely it is not a major punishment imposed on the appellant
and the order of the learned Single Judge is perfectly valid. It is seen that
there is a categorical evidence that the appellant is responsible for
misappropriation of Rs.1.58 lakhs and therefore, the authority apart from
imposing punishment is directed to recover the amount from the appellant.
This Court makes it very clear that in the light of the recent judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, we cannot interfere with the punishment and if
terminal benefits, gratuity are not settled, it is open to the respondents to
recover that amount from the gratuity and the remaining amount can be paid
(Steel Authority of India Ltd., vs. Raghbendra Singh and Others
(MANU/SCOR/46090/2020) and Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
Mahanadi Coalfields Limited vs. Rabindranath Choubey, reported in AIR
2020 SC 2978 . This Court also makes it very clear that the recovery
ordered from the pension for a period of two years is not interfered with.
The learned single Judge, has rightly held that the concept of double
jeopardy in no way, stands attracted to the case on hand. Recovery is for the
misappropriation committed by the appellant and the punishment is for the
act of misappropriating the temple amounts.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1553 of 2021
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
and
A.A.NAKKIRAN, J.
dpq
10. In view of the above Apex Court decision, this Court cannot go
into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience. In
D.Latha vs. The Director General of Police, New Delhi and Others,
reported in MANU/TN/7362/2021, we had interfered with the punishment
imposed on the employee therein, who was on continuous leave after the
period of authorized absence and the punishment imposed was found to be
shockingly disproportionate and that yardstick cannot be applied here.
11. The Writ Appeal fails and stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
(S.V.N.J.,) (A.A.N.J.,)
04.10.2021
dpq
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Internet: Yes/No
W.A.No.1553 of 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
