Madras High Court
K.N.Surendran vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 June, 2023
W.P(MD)No.8734 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 08.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P(MD)No.8734 of 2023
and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.8001 and 8002 of 2023
K.N.Surendran ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Department of Registration and Commercial Taxes,
Secretariat, Chennai – 9.
2.The Inspector General of Registration,
Department of Registration,
No.100, Santhome High Road,
Chennai – 28.
3.The District Registrar,
O/o. The District Registrar,
Virudhungar,
Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.8734 of 2023
calling for the records relating to the impugned punishment order passed
by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings in No.32208/V2/2010 dated
25.01.2018 and the consequential impugned rejection order passed by the
1st respondent in G.O.(T).No.199 Commercial and Registration
Department dated 25.10.2019 and quash the same as illegal and
consequentially to direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as Sub
Registrar notionally from the date of promotion of the petitioner's junior
within the period that may be stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.Ajmal Khan, Senior Counsel,
For M/s.Ajmal Associates.
For Respondents : Mr.M.Prakash,
Addl. Government Pleader.
ORDER
Heard the learned senior counsel for the writ petitioner and the
learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.
2.The petitioner joined the Registration Department as Junior
Assistant in the year 1994. He was promoted as Assistant in the year
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.8734 of 2023
2000. He reached the age of superannuation on 31.03.2020. During his
service, he was implicated in a vigilance case. The petitioner was found
in possession of Rs.710/- when a surprise check was conducted on
14.06.2010. The proceedings culminated in TDP No.21 of 2012 before
the Commissioner / Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Tirunelveli.
The charge framed against the petitioner was found to have been
established. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority imposed the
punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year with
cumulative effect. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed an appeal
before the Government. The Government also confirmed the order
passed by the disciplinary authority and dismissed the appeal vide
G.O.(T)No.199, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, dated
25.10.2019. Challenging the same, the present writ petition came to be
filed.
3.The learned senior counsel for the petitioner raised primarily
three grounds. (a) The government after having obtained the opinion of
the service commission before passing order in the appeal ought to have
supplied a copy of the same to the petitioner. In this case, it was not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.8734 of 2023
done. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in 2011 (4)
SCC 591 (S.N.Narula Vs. Union of India), he submitted that the order
passed by the appellate authority deserves to be set aside. (b) He pointed
out that though the petitioner has raised very many grounds, the orders
passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority are
non-speaking. They have failed to deal with the points raised by the
petitioner. (c) The petitioner was found in possession of Rs.710/- in his
pocket. It is true that when he entered into the office in the morning, he
had entered in the register that he was having only Rs.70/-. However, he
has given convincing explanation as to how he came to be in possession
of the extra amount. The petitioner had retired from service and
therefore, it would be inequitable to make the petitioner to face the
proceedings once again. The learned senior counsel on instructions
submitted that even though the petitioner has also sought the
consequential relief of promotion as Sub Registrar, he would not press
the said prayer and he would be satisfied if the impugned orders are set
aside and the matter is given quietus.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.8734 of 2023
4.The respondents have filed counter affidavit and the learned
Additional Government Pleader took me through its contents. The stand
of the respondents is that the Tribunal had gone into the entire issue and
rendered a finding of fact. When the disciplinary authority is agreeing
with the reasons assigned by the Tribunal, it is not necessary for the
disciplinary authority to once again pass an elaborate order. He also
would add that the copy of the service commission opinion was furnished
to the petitioner along with the impugned order. According to him, the
case against the writ petitioner had been adequately established and
therefore, the matter does not call for interference. He pressed for
dismissal of the writ petition.
5.I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the
materials on record. On 14.06.2010, there was a surprise check on the
office of the Joint Sub Registrar – II, Virudhunagar. During surprise
check, the Sub Registrar was found in possession of Rs.12,860/- and the
Office Assistant was found in possession of Rs.4,490/-. The petitioner
who was holding the rank of Assistant was found in possession of
Rs.710/-. In the registration department, there is a practice of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.8734 of 2023
maintaining a register and the staff are expected to make an entry in the
register as regards the cash possessed by them in their personal capacity.
On the fateful day, the petitioner had made an entry in the register that he
was having Rs.70/- with him. But during surprise check, he was found in
possession of Rs.710/- and that led to the institution of the disciplinary
action.
6.Before I go into the merits of the matter, I must straightaway
endorse the contention of the learned senior counsel that the impugned
order passed by the Government is liable to be set aside. The
Government had obtained opinion of the service commission before
passing the impugned government order. Having obtained the opinion of
the service commission, it ought to have furnished the same to the
petitioner and obtained his further explanation. Without doing so, the
impugned government order had been straightaway passed. The question
is whether the order passed by the Government is vitiated in such
circumstances is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the
decision reported in 2011 (4) SCC 591 (S.N.Narula Vs. Union of India)
had held as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.8734 of 2023
“6.We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned counsel for the respondent. It is submitted by the counsel for
the appellant that the report of the Union Public Service Commission
was not communicated to the appellant before the final order was
passed. Therefore, the appellant was unable to make an effective
representation before the disciplinary authority as regards the
punishment imposed.
7.We find that the stand taken by the Central Administrative
Tribunal was correct and the High Court was not justified in
interfering with the order. Therefore, we set aside the judgment of the
Division Bench of the High Court and direct that the disciplinary
proceedings against the appellant be finally disposed of in accordance
with the direction given by the Tribunal in para 6 of the order. The
appellant may submit a representation within two weeks to the
disciplinary authority and we make it clear that the matter shall be
finally disposed of by the disciplinary authority within a period of 3
months thereafter.”
Therefore, on this sole ground, the impugned government order is
liable to be set aside. It is accordingly set aside. As pointed out by the
learned senior counsel, the impugned government order is vitiated on yet
another ground. Questioning the order passed by the disciplinary
authority, the petitioner had raised a host of grounds. Paragraph No.5 of
the impugned government order is as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.8734 of 2023
“5.nkw;fz;l #Hypy;> gjpt[j;Jiwj; jiytuhy;
tHq;fg;gl;l “Cjpa cah;t[ xU tUl fhyk; jpuz;l gaDld;
epWj;jk;” vDk; jz;lidia vjph;j;J jpU.K.N.Rnue;jpud;>
cjtpahsh; muRf;Fr; bra;Js;s nky;KiwaPl;Oid chpa
Mtzq;fSlDk;> jkpH;ehL muRg; gzpahsh; njh;thizaj;jpd;
fUe;Jf;fSlDk;> muR ftdkhft[k;> Rakhft[k; Ma;t[ bra;jJ.
Ma;t[f;Fg;gpd;> jdpah; jdJ nky;KiwaPl;Oy;
Vw;Wf;bfhs;sj;jf;f tifapy; fhuzq;fs; VJk; bjhptpf;fhj
fhuzj;jpdhy;> mth; muRf;Fr; bra;Js;s nky;KiwaPl;Oid
njh;thizaj;jpd; fUj;jpid Vw;W> rhukw;wjhff; fUjp
epuhfhpj;J mtUf;F tHq;fg;gl;l jz;lidia cWjp bra;ayhk;
vd;W muR Kot[ bra;J> mt;thnw MizapLfpwJ.”
7.Except making a formal statement that the record has been
carefully gone through and that the contentions advanced by the
delinquent official are not satisfactory, there is absolutely no other
reason. There is nothing on record to show that there has been due
application of mind on the contentions advanced by the petitioner.
Therefore, I have to necessarily come to the conclusion that the
impugned government order is non-speaking in nature. On these twin
grounds, the impugned order is set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.8734 of 2023
8.The question that arises for consideration is whether the matter
has to be remitted to the file of the first respondent to give an opportunity
to the petitioner and pass a fresh order.
9.As rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the
petitioner, the petitioner is aged about 61 years. The issue dates back to
the year 2010. During the surprise check, three officials were found in
possession of sums which were not reflected in the office register. The
Sub-Registrar was found in possession of Rs.12,860/-. The Office
Assistant who occupies the lowest grade was found in possession of
Rs.4,490/-. The petitioner who is holding the middle rank was found in
possession of Rs.710/-. The explanation given by the petitioner deserves
acceptance. The petitioner states that he suddenly felt giddy when he
went out in the evening for having tea. He called his relative by name
Gopikrishnan for assistance. The said Gopikrishnan was also examined
during enquiry and he deposed that he had given the balance amount to
the petitioner herein to by medicines. There is nothing improbable about
the version given by the petitioner. The petitioner has also given up his
claim on promotion. The petitioner had joined the department way back
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.8734 of 2023
in the year 1994. He became an Assistant in the year 2000. His juniors
had been promoted as Sub Registrars. Because the petitioner was
involved in the vigilance case in the year 2010, he had to retire as
Assistant on 31.03.2020. The failure of the petitioner to get promotion as
Sub Registrar itself in my view is sufficient punishment for the petitioner.
Considering the aforesaid circumstances, the issue need not be kept
pending further. The orders impugned in this writ petition are set aside
and the writ petition is allowed accordingly. The respondents shall re-fix
the petitioner's pension and also pay the arrears to the petitioner. This
exercise shall be done within a period of twelve weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
08.06.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
ias
To:-
1.The Principal Secretary,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.8734 of 2023
Department of Registration and Commercial Taxes,
Secretariat, Chennai – 9.
2.The Inspector General of Registration,
Department of Registration,
No.100, Santhome High Road,
Chennai – 28.
3.The District Registrar,
O/o. The District Registrar,
Virudhungar,
Virudhunagar District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.8734 of 2023
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
ias
W.P(MD)No.8734 of 2023
08.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
