The State Of Tamil Nadu vs T.K.Jagadeesan
2022 Latest Caselaw 14729 Mad

                                                                                W.A.No.189 of 2021

                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                   DATED: 23.08.2022

                                                            CORAM:

                                THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY
                                                   and
                             THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

                                                  W.A.No.189 of 2021
                                                and C.M.P.No.881 of 2021


                     1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
                       represented by the Principal Secretary,
                       Department of Commercial Taxes
                       and Registration (K) Department,
                       Fort St.George,
                       Chennai – 600 009.

                     2.The Inspector General of Registration,
                       No.100, Santhome High Road,
                       Chennai – 600 028.                                             ..Appellants

                                                              Vs

                     T.K.Jagadeesan                                                  ..Respondent


                                  Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the

                     order dated 01.08.2019 made in W.P.No.12467 of 2018.

                                       For Appellants   :      Mr.Stalin Abhimanyu

                                                               Additional Government Pleader

                                       For Respondent :        Mr.R.Rajendran

                     1/6


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                W.A.No.189 of 2021



                                                       JUDGMENT

(Delivered by Paresh Upadhyay.,J)

1. Challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated

01.08.2019 recorded on W.P.No.12467 of 2018. This appeal is by

the State Authorities - respondent in writ petition.

2. Learned Additional Government Pleader has submitted

that, directions by learned Single Judge finding fault with the

punishment order of recovery of Rs.1,55,980/- from the gratuity is

erroneous and therefore this appeal be entertained. Learned

advocate for the appellant authorities has further submitted that,

the writ petitioner, who was working as Sub-Registrar, had accepted

a document for registration without sufficient stamp duty, which

was between grandchildren and grandparents, which as per the

policy of the State could not be termed to be the same family and

that misconduct resulted in the loss of the revenue to the State for

which, the writ petitioner was rightly punished and no interference

should have been made. It is submitted that this appeal be

entertained.

3. On the other hand, learned advocate for the respondent

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.189 of 2021

in this appeal – the original writ petitioner has submitted that, the

action of the writ petitioner was just and proper, and even if the

State finds that the policy of the State was otherwise, at the best

that could be termed to be an inadvertence on the part of the writ

petitioner and was certainly not misconduct. It is submitted that

therefore it should not have led to the punishment, after his

retirement, that too of recovery from the gratuity. It is submitted

that grant of relief by learned Single Judge is just and proper and

therefore this appeal be dismissed.

4. Having heard learned advocates for the respective

parties and having considered the material on record, this Court

finds that, what amount of stamp duty should have been levied

itself is an issue pending with the Division Bench. Reference in this

regard needs to be made to the stand taken by the State in

W.P.No.473 of 2021 which is ordered to be tagged with this appeal,

in view of order dated 02.02.2021 recorded thereon. The said issue

is not the 'service matter' and as per Roster the same need not be

gone into by this Bench.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.189 of 2021

5. We find that, when the action of the writ petitioner could

not be termed to be 'misconduct', the initiation of disciplinary

proceedings could not be justified. In any case, it did not warrant

major punishment of recovery of Rs.1,55,980/- from his retirement

dues.

6. In totality we find that, we do not find any error in the

judgment arrived at by learned Single Judge on the ground

recorded in the order under challenge. We are convinced that, in

procedure so also in substance, the very initiation of disciplinary

proceedings was unjustified. In any case, it should not have

continued beyond superannuation retirement of the writ petitioner

and final punishment order was unjustified. Viewing the matter from

any angle, we find that, the action of the State was unsustainable.

The filing of appeals like this may also warrant consideration as to

whether cost needs to be imposed or not, however that aspect may

not be gone into in this case.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.189 of 2021

7. For the reason recorded above, this appeal is dismissed.

No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition would not survive.

(P.U., J.) (V.B.S., J.) 23.08.2022 Index:No ssm/23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.189 of 2021

PARESH UPADHYAY, J.

and V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN.,J ssm

W.A.No.189 of 2021

23.08.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis