Madras High Court
R.Balakrishnan vs The Additional Chief Secretary/ on 3 January, 2023
W.P.Nos.36618 & 36619 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 03.01.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
W.P.Nos.36618 & 36619 of 2015
R.Balakrishnan .... Petitioner in both the W.Ps
vs
1. The Additional Chief Secretary/
Commissioner of Revenue Administration,
Chepauk,
Chennai - 5.
2. The District Collector,
Krishnagiri. .... Respondents in both the W.Ps.
W.P.No.36618/2015 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to
the second respondent vide proceedings No.4846/2013/A1 dated 26.09.2015
and and to quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to
reinstate the petitioner in service with all attendant benefits.
W.P.No.36619/2015 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to
the second respondent vide proceedings No.4846/2013/A1 dated 07.08.2013
and and to quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to
reinstate the petitioner in service with all attendant benefits.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.36618 & 36619 of 2015
For Petitioner
in both W.Ps : Mr.S.Vijayakumar
For respondents
in both W.Ps. : Mr.V.Arun,
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.Abishek,
Government Advocate
COMMON ORDER
These writ petitions have been filed challenging the impugned charge
memo dated 07.08.2013 and the impugned order of suspension dated
26.09.2015.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
i) The petitioner was appointed as Revenue Assistant on 26.07.2004
through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and allotted to Taluk Office,
Hosur. Later, he was promoted to the post of Deputy Tahsildar on 05.01.2011 at
Denkanikottai Taluk, Krishnagiri District and was serving as a Deputy Tahsildar
(Election) Denkanikottai Taluk, Krishnagiri District. Though he was eligible for
promotion to the post of Tahsildar for the year 2013 (crucial dated 1.7.2013), a
charge memo under Rule 17(b) of the T.N.C.S.(D & A) Rules was issued alleging
serious misconduct vide Proceedings No.4846/2013/A1 dated 07.08.2013 by the
2nd respondent, consequent to which, he was deprived promotion to the post
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.36618 & 36619 of 2015
of Tahsildar for the year 2013 and several juniors are serving as Tahsildar and
hence, the petitioner was greatly prejudiced. Totally, nine charges were framed
against the petitioner.
ii) The main allegation against the petitioner is that he had abused his
power by recommending in the note file to issue patta to one C.K.Ramasamy
S/o Krishnamachari, Hosur Taluk, Chichurganapalli Village, Hosur Taluk,
Krishnagiri District, in respect of S.No.235/3 admeasuring an extent of 2.06.00
hectare. The said land was notified as Anadeenam and therefore,
C.K.Ramasamy had sought for grant of patta on account of his continuous
possession of more than 100 years.
iii) In respect of the subject matter, this Court in W.P.No.1701/12 dated
8.3.2012 directed the Tahsildar to grant patta in the light of the decree passed
in O.S.No.24/2009 dated 09.06.2010. The 2nd respondent accepted the order
of this Court and issued express memo for compliance. The Sub-Collector, in his
proceedings dated 30.05.2012, directed the Tahsildar to consider the order
passed in O.S.No.24/2009 and the order passed in W.P.No.1701/2012 for
issuance of patta in favour of the said Ramasamy. Therefore, the petitioner put
up a note disclosing the facts and suggested for consideration of the request for
grant of patta in the light of the order passed by this Court and based on the
express memo sent by the 2nd respondent. The file was forwarded to Tahsildar,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.36618 & 36619 of 2015
who is the ultimate authority for passing appropriate orders for granting patta.
The Tahsildar, after referring the order passed by the Civil Court, Krishnagiri
and the order passed by this Court and after obtaining opinion from the
Assistant Settlement Officer, who is the custodian of the government records
for grant of patta, issued patta in favour of C.K.Ramasamy vide proceedings
dated 15.06.2012.
iv) While so, the charge memo was issued to the petitioner on
07.08.2013 to submit his explanation on 07.10.2013. An enquiry officer was
appointed on 12.09.2013 and the enquiry was conducted on 07.10.2013. While
so, the 2nd respondent issued an order of suspension dated 26.09.2015 under
Rule 17(e)(1) of the T.N.C.S.(D & A) Rules, when there is no public
interest/imminent necessary is involved. Hence, the above writ petitions are
filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.
4. The gist of charges levelled against the petitioner are as follows:
Charge No.1:
That the petitioner R.Balakrishnan, Zonal Deputy Tahsildar has abused
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.36618 & 36619 of 2015
his power by recommending in the note file No.N.Di.7103/2012 C2 dated
30.2.2013 in this file note file Page No.2 and 3 to issue the patta to one Thiru
C.K.Ramasamy, S/o Krishnamachari, Hosur Taluk - Chichurganapalli Village,
S.No.235/3 to an extent of 2.06.0 Hectare.
Charge No.2.
That the petitioner failed to intimate to the Tahsildar Hosur to file
appeal against the judgement delivered in O.S.No.24/09 by the Principal
District Judge, Krishnagiri on the suit filed by one C.K.Ramasamy against the
order passed by Special Tahsildar in his S.R.06/ACA 26/63 dated 6.4.71 on the
ground that Civil Court has no jurisdiction and the suit is barred by limitation.
Charge No.3
Even though Collector, Krishnagiri, has been shown as second respondent
in the court of the Principal District Judge, Krisnagiri in the original Suit
No.24/09, the Zonal deputy Tahsildar, Hosur, has failed to prepare and file
counter affidavit in the above said case through Tahsildar, Hosur and thereby
committed misconduct.
Charge No.4.
That the petitioner failed to obtain the legal opinion from the
Government Pleader, High Court, Madras on the judgement delivered in the
court of the Principal District Judge, krishnagiri in O.S.No.24/09 and for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.36618 & 36619 of 2015
orders passed by this Hon'ble High court of Madras on W.P.No.1701/12 dated
8.3.12.
Charge No.5.
That the Sub-Collector, Hosur has informed to consider to issue the patta
to C.K.Ramasamy, S/o Krishnamachari in S.No.235/3 Chichurganapalli, Hosur
Taluk, in his Roc.3401/2011/B2 dated 30.5.12, whereas the Zonal Deputy
Tahsildar has recommended to issue the patta to C.K.Ramsamy based on the
decree passed in O.S.No.24/09 dated 9.6.10 by the Court of the Principal
District Judge, Krishnagiri and High Court order in W.P.No.1701/12 dated
8.3.12.
Charge No.6
Though the District Collector was shown as second respondent in
W.P.No.1701/12 filed by Thiru.C.K.Ramasamy, s/o Krishnamachari, the said
case was listed on 8.3.12 and that on the same day, order was passed in favour
of C.K.Ramasamy and against the government. No reasonable opportunity was
given to the District Collector, Krishnagiri, before the order is passed on 8.3.12.
Despite the above, the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar has not taken any steps/action
thereby acted in favour of C.K.Ramasamy to secure an order on 15.6.12 by
recommending for issue of patta, thereby acted against the interest of the
government.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.36618 & 36619 of 2015
Charge No.7.
Even though the District Collector, Krishnagiri has been shown as second
respondent in W.P.No.1701/12, the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar has acted on his own
without obtaining any concurrence/orders from the District Collector, thereby
abused his position for passing orders in favour of C.K.Ramasamy on 15.6.12.
Charge No.8
That the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, has failed to take any action to prefer
an appeal against the order made in W.P.No.1701/12 and also in the decree
made in O.S.No.24/09 on the file of Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri and
obtained stay of the orders in favour of the petitioner.
Charge No.9.
That the petitioner has failed to discharge his duties in terms of Rule
20(1)I of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct Rules.
5. (i) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Tahsildar
has passed orders granting patta in favour of C.K.Ramasamy by making entry in
the revenue records. Admittedly, the said Ramasamy filed a Civil Suit in
O.S.No.24 of 2009 on the file of Principal District Court, Krishnagiri, against the
Assistant Settlement officer (South), Chepauk, Chennai-5 and the State of Tamil
Nadu, rep. by its District Collector, Krishnagiri and sought for a decree
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.36618 & 36619 of 2015
declaring the title to the suit property and for a mandatory injunction directing
the defendants therein (Assistant Settlement Officer and District Collector), to
grant ryotwari patta for the suit land in favour of the plaintiff(Ramasamy). The
said suit was resisted by the State on merits and ultimately, the learned
Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri, on 9.6.2010 decreed the suit as prayed
for. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the Assistant Settlement Officer,
sought opinion from the Government Pleader, Krishnagiri who opined that it is
not a fit case for filing the appeal. Learned counsel would further submitted
that the Government Pleader in his letter dated 12.09.2010 opined that the
appeal is not necessary for the case. Similar opinion was obtained from another
Additional Government Pleader in Krishnagiri on 27.04.2012 who also opined
that the suit property belongs to the private inamdhars and hence, the decree
and judgment of the learned Principal District Judge, is correct. Learned
counsel would further submit that the Assistant Settlement Officer sought
opinion from Additional Government Pleader (O.S.) of this Court and by letter
dated 5.8.2010, he opined that it is not a fit case to move appeal before this
Court. Learned counsel would further submit that in the meanwhile, aggrieved
by non-compliance of the judgment and decree, the said Ramasamy moved this
Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.1701/2012 for a mandamus directing the Tahsildar,
Hosur to grant patta in the light of the judgment and decree dated 9.6.2010
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.36618 & 36619 of 2015
passed in O.S.No.24/2009. This Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass an order on
8.3.2012 directing the respondents to pass appropriate orders within two
months. Thereafter, the Tahildar passed an order granting patta in favour of
Ramasamy by making entry in the revenue records. From the above, it is seen
that the Tahsildar, Hosur has granted patta on the strength of the judicial
orders made in O.S.No.24/2009 dated 9.6.2010 and W.P.No.1701/2012 dated
8.3.2012 and also based on the instructions given by the District Collector,
Krishnagiri, Sub Collector, Hosur and DRO, Krishnagiri, besides, it has been
clearly opined by the respective Government Pleader that the decree passed in
O.S.No.24/2009 is not fit for filing an appeal.
ii) Learned counsel would further submit that the District Collector
along with the Assistant Settlement Officer moved this Hon'ble Court against
the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.24/2009 in M.P.No.2/2015 in
A.S.SRNo.122206/2013 by filing an appeal under section 96 C.P.C. with a
petition for condonation of delay of 883 days in filing the appeal. This Hon'ble
Court has dismissed the said petition confirming the order passed in
O.S.No.24/2009. While so, the 2nd respondent has issued the impugned charge
memo dated 7.8.2013 alleging that the petitioner has committed a serious
misconduct in putting up a note for grant of patta in favour of Ramasamy by
the Tahsildar and also alleging that the petitioner ought to have taken steps to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.36618 & 36619 of 2015
file first appeal against the order, but have not done so and caused loss to the
Government in granting patta. Thereafter, the petitioner was suspended from
service after a period of two years by proceedings dated 26.09.2015 under
section 17(e) of the T.N.C.S.(D&A) Rules.
iii) Learned counsel would further submit that insofar as the impugned
charge memo is concerned, this Court was pleased to stay the entire
proceedings in M.P.No.1/2015 in W.P.No.36619/2015 and vacate stay petitions
were filed by the respondents in W.V.M.P.No.917 and 918 of 2017 and this
Court rejected the same and the stay was made absolute on 19.05.2018.
iv) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned
charge memo is vague and passed in non-application of mind. The petitioner
has merely set out the facts as borne out of records and put up the file to his
immediate superior viz., Taluk Tahsildar, Hosur. The Tahildar, in turn, has put up
a note and forwarded it to the superior officer viz., District Revenue officer for
appropriate instructions. Being the subordinate official, the role of the
petitioner is only to place the facts on record and he is neither a competent
authority nor has power to grant patta. The petitioner has followed the judicial
verdict in the above and submitted the same for appropriate orders to his
immediate superior officer. There is no serious misconduct on the part of the
petitioner. The petitioner has only complied with the directions given by his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.36618 & 36619 of 2015
superior officers. Learned counsel would therefore submit that the subordinate
officer, who had put up a note on instructions from the higher officials, cannot
be made responsible and if he fails to follow the instructions, he would be
taken to action by the higher officials. Hence, the charge memo is liable to be
quashed.
v) Learned counsel would also contend that the there is inordinate delay
at every stage of the proceedings. When the suit for declaration was filed in
the year 2009 and the same was decreed on 09.06.2010, the petitioner was not
at all in the picture and he was not serving as subordinate official during the
said period. He joined as Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Hosur only on 06.11.2011,
i.e., after a period of two years. Moreover, two Government Pleaders at Hosur,
Sub Collector and also Government Pleader of Madras High Court have
categorically opined that it is not a fit case for appeal. Further, the First
Appeal filed with condonation of delay of 883 days was also dismissed by this
Court by passing detailed order in A.S.SR.No.12206/2013 dated 25.04.2016.
The petitioner is deprived of his legitimate promotion to the post of Tahsildar
and Deputy Collector which fell due long ago and the same is purposely delayed
by the respondents, taking advantage of the pendency of the writ petition.
Therefore, the charge memo as well as the order of suspension are contrary to
the service rules and hence, they are liable to be set aside and consequently,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.36618 & 36619 of 2015
direct the 2nd respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with all service
and attendant benefits.
vi) In support of the above contentions, the learned counsel would rely
on the following decisions.
a) W.P.(MD) No.2857/2006 dated 27.7.2006 (V.Abdul Rahim vs. The
District Collector, Sivagangai)
b) W.P.No.16280/2011 dated 19.10.2012 (V.Saravanan Vs.Principal
Secretary to Government and others)
c) W.P.No.9004/2016 dated 02.08.2018 (K.G.Thulasirangan vs. Secretary
to Government and others)
vii) Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that
pursuant to the interim order granted by this Court in M.P.Nos.1 & 1 of 2015 in
W.P.Nos.36618 & 36619 of 2015 dated 18.11.2015, the suspension order of the
petitioner was revoked by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings dated
09.12.2015 and he was posted as Head Assistant in 'S' Section of Collectorate,
Krishnagiri by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 11.12.2015.
6. Contrary to the above contentions, the learned Additional Advocate
General would contend that petitioner has committed grave misconduct in
recommending for grant of patta in favour of an ineligible person for which
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.36618 & 36619 of 2015
appropriate disciplinary action under Rule 17(b) of the T.N.C.S.(D&A) Rules has
been instituted against him. He would further submit that the petitioner did
not verify about the existence of title and possession of the land with the said
C.K.Ramasamy. He has recommended for grant of patta of not only for a huge
extent of land but also in respect of a highly valuable land which is beyond the
power of the Tahsildar. He has recommended for grant of patta in favour of
C.K.Ramasamy who had already sold the said land measuring an extent of 5.10
acres to Tvl.Ravindra, Muni Reddy and Tmt.Radamma vide Document
No.2528/2008 dated 22.02.2008 on the file of Sub Registrar, Hosur, on
22.02.2008 itself. The petitioner failed to verify and confirm about the absence
of title and possession of the land with the said C.K.Ramasamy. Further,
immediately after receipt of the court order in W.P.No.1701/2012 dated
08.03.2012, the petitioner ought to have taken appropriate action to file an
appeal against the said order by submitting a note accordingly to Tahsildar as
per the instructions already issued by the Principal Secretary and Commissioner
of Land Administration, Chennai dated 14.02.2011, but he had not done so. The
petitioner has paved way for a heavy loss to the Government. The petitioner
being the Zonal Deputy Tashildar, has not only failed to safeguard the
Government land but also paved way to grant the Government land to an
ineligible person which continued all these years as a Government land
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.36618 & 36619 of 2015
(Anadheenam). The recommendation made by the petitioner is also against the
provisions of the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into
Ryotwari) Act 1963. Learned counsel would further contend that the petitioner
is not eligible for promotion to the post of Tasildar for the year 2013 as alleged
by him as he has not rendered unblemished record of service in the Department
and the petitioner is fit to be imposed with major penalties for the grave
misconducted committed by him.
7. This Court considered the rival submissions made and perused the
materials available on record.
8. Admittedly, the petitioner has put up a note to the Tahsildar,
recommending for grant of patta in favour of C.K.Ramasamy, based on the
express memo sent by the 2nd respondent. The file was forwarded to Tahsildar,
who passed orders granting patta in favour of C.K.Ramasamy. The said
C.K.Ramasamy, before submitting his application for grant of patta, filed a
Civil Suit in O.S.No.24/2009 before the Principal District Court, Krishnagiri,
against the Assistant Settlement Officer, (South), Chepauk,Chennai and the
State of Tamil Nadu rep. by District Collector, Krishnagiri and sought for a
decree declaring the title to the suit property and for a mandatory injunction
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.36618 & 36619 of 2015
directing the defendants to grant ryotwari patta in his favour and the said suit
was also decreed in his favour.
9. It is also seen from the records that the First Appeal filed against the
said decree with condonation of delay of 883 days was also dismissed by this
Court by passing a detailed order in A.S.SR.No.12206/2013 dated 25.04.2016.
Based on the directions given by the superior officials such as District Collector,
Krishnagiri, Sub Collector, Hosur, Tahsildar, Hosur, the petitioner prepared the
proceedings dated 2.5.2012 and forwarded the same to the District Revenue
Officer through Sub Collector, Hosur for appropriate instructions to grant patta
within the stipulated period prescribed for two months by this Court by order
dated 8.3.2012 in W.P.No.1701/2012. The petitioner is not entrusted or
empowered with the task of granting patta. Being the subordinate official, the
petitioner has only placed the file after referring to the decree passed in the
suit dated 9.6.2010 and the order passed by this Court dated 8.3.2012. In order
to attract serious misconduct, there must be wilful dishonest intention on the
part of the delinquent. In the present case, the petitioner has only complied
with the directions in obedience of the instructions given by his superior
officials. As a subordinate working in the office, it was only his duty to
implement the orders passed by the higher authority. In view of this factual
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.36618 & 36619 of 2015
situation, there is absolutely no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the
petitioner cannot be implicated even by remotely. The Subordinate officials are
entitled to record their views in the note file but it is open to the higher officer
to express his views with respect to a subject matter in a particular manner.
Merely because the officer has given a particular opinion, it cannot be said that
he has taken a decision consciously to help a particular person. The Supreme
Court in various decisions has observed that notings are only opinion of the
concerned officer and it would not constitute a decision.
10. Further, pursuant to the interim stay order granted by this Court, the
petitioner was reinstated in service and is continuing in service. Though the
petitions to vacate the interim stay was filed, the same were rejected by this
Court and the stay granted was also made absolute on 19.05.2018.
11. It is also seen that the charge memo was issued on 7.8.2013 and only
after two years, the petitioner was placed under suspension i.e., on
26.09.2015. Hence, there is an inordinate delay. In this regard, a learned
Single Judge of this Court, in the case of Kootha Pillai Vs. The Commissioner,
Municipal Administration and 4 others passed in W.P.No.15231 of 2006 dated
05.11.2008, had an occasion to refer to various decisions of the Hon'ble
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.36618 & 36619 of 2015
Supreme Court and ultimately held that the inordinate delay in initiating and
completing the disciplinary proceedings, would cause prejudice to the
delinquent and therefore, the proceedings itself, is vitiated. The said decision
will apply to the present facts of the case. Further, as a matter of fact, the
mental agony and sufferings of the petitioner due to the protracted disciplinary
proceedings would be much more than the punishment.
12. The petitioner has expressed his opinion in the note file only on the
strength of the judicial orders made in O.S.No.24/2009 dated 9.6.2010 and
W.P.No.1701/2012 dated 8.3.2012 and also based on the instructions given by
the District Collector, Krishnagiri, Sub Collector, Hosur and DRO, Krishnagiri.
Further, the appeal filed against the decree dated 9.6.2010 along with
condonation of delay was rejected by a detailed order passed by this Court.
Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the basis on which the charges
were framed and the consequent suspension order passed against the
petitioner, cannot be sustained.
13. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned orders dated 07.08.2013
and dated 26.09.2015, are quashed. Consequently, there shall be a direction to
the first respondent to extend all service and monetary benefits to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.36618 & 36619 of 2015
petitioner. Such orders shall be passed by the respondents within a period of
twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, both
the Writ Petitions are allowed. No costs.
03.01.2023
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order (2/2)
vsi
To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary/
Commissioner of Revenue Administration,
Chepauk,
Chennai - 5.
2. The District Collector,
Krishnagiri.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.36618 & 36619 of 2015
J.NISHA BANU,J.
vsi
W.P.Nos.36618 & 36619 of 2015
03.01.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
