Madras High Court
K.Gomathi vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 13 March, 2023
W.P.(MD)No.6870 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 13.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.P.(MD)No. 6870 of 2016
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos. 5897 & 5898 of 2016
K.Gomathi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary,
Tourism Culture and Religious Endowments Department,
Fort Saint George, Chennai.
2. The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious Charitable Endowments Department,
Tirunelveli District.
3. The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious Charitable Endowments Department,
Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the proceedings
of the Impugned Government Order in GO(P) No.8 dated 14.01.2016 on the file
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.6870 of 2016
of the 1st respondent, confirming the order of the 2nd respondent in
Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.19866/2014/B2, dated 22.04.15 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Vinoharan
For Respondents : Mr.P.Thambidurai
Government Advocate
ORDER
This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order in GO(P)
No.8, dated 14.01.2016, passed by the 1st respondent.
2. The petitioner has joined in the respondents Department in the
year 1984 and thereafter, promoted to various posts. In the year 2012, when the
petitioner was working as Inspector of Nanguneri was promoted to
Superintendent in Nellaiyappar Temple, Tiruelveli Town. On 05.09.2012, the
petitioner was supposed to hand over all the documents to the subsequent
incumbent.
3. According to the petitioner, she has handed over 90% of the
documents and reports, in her custody. However, the closure report was not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.6870 of 2016
prepared, since she was immediately relieved from the said post. The respondents
have initiated a disciplinary proceeding for not preparing the closure report and
has imposed punishment of stoppage of increment of one year without cumulative
effect.
4. The contention of the petitioner is that in the 3rd respondent office
out of 20 posts 10 posts were vacant and on the available strength, the office was
working, hence she could not complete the work. The respondents have initiated a
disciplinary proceeding under Rule 17(a) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules and has imposed punishment.
5. The respondents have filed counter stating that the petitioner has
not handed over charge and therefore, subsequent incumbent could not carry out
the duty properly. Moreover, only minor punishment was imposed on the
petitioner which would inculcate the discipline on the petitioner and hence prayed
to dismiss the writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.6870 of 2016
6. Heard Mr.K.Vinoharan, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr.P.Thambidurai, learned Government Advocate, appearing for
the respondents. Perused the material documents available on record.
7. It is seen that the disciplinary proceeding was initiated under Rule
17(a) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The contention
of the respondent is that the petitioner has handed over the 90% of the charge, but
the petitioner has not prepared the closure report and took two years to submit the
closure report. But the contention of the petitioner is that the office was having 20
sanctioned post, but only 10 persons are working. Hence all the employees were
having over work burden. Moreover, the in-charge work was frequently changed
to various persons. In the explanation the petitioner has categorically narrated the
difficulties and also submitted that several persons were posted in the said post
for short period. The relevant portion is extracted here under:
“ehd; ehd;FNehp Ma;th; nghWg;gpypUe;j fhyj;jpy;
ve;jnthU jpUf;NfhapYf;Fk; epjp ,og;G Vw;gLk; tifapy;
nray;gl;ljpy;iy. ehd; ehd;FNehp> gphptpypUe;J tpLtpf;fg;gl;lJk;
Kjypy; jpU.gukrptk; vd;gtiu $Ljy; nghWg;gpy;
epakpf;fg;gl;lJ. mjd;gpd;dh; mth; nray;glhj Kbahj epiyapy;
Ma;th; jpU.Mde;j; vd;gtiu $Ljy; nghWg;gpy; epakpf;fg;gl;lJ.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.6870 of 2016
mjd; gpd;dh; jpUkjp.F.jq;fk; vd;gtiu ehd;FNehp Ma;tuhf
epakpf;fg;gl;lJ. md;dhh; nghWg;Ngw;ftpy;iy. mjd;gpd;dh;
jpUkjp.moFypq;Nf];thp vd;gtiu ehd;FNehp Ma;tuhf epakdk;
nra;ag;gl;lJ. mtUk; gzpNaw;ftpy;iy. mjd; gpd;dh;
jpU.fNz\; itj;jpaypq;fk; vd;w Ma;th; ehd;FNehp> Ma;tuhf
$Ljy; nghWg;Ngw;w NghJ mthplk; gyKiw NehpYk;>
njhiyNgrp thapyhfTk;> nghWg;Ngw;f njhptpj;Jk; mth;
cz;bay; jpwg;G Vyk; Mfpatw;wpw;F Njjp vd;W $wp fhyk;
jho;j;jptpl;lhh;.”
On reading this, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondents have
frequently transferred persons and have granted in-charge posts to several persons
in short periods and hence the incumbent could not carry the duty properly.
8. Moreover, the allegation against the petitioner cannot be
considered as misconduct. The word “misconduct” means misconduct arising
from ill motive. Acts of negligence, error of judgments or innocent mistake do not
constitute such misconduct. Moreover, a single act of omission or error would not
constitute misconduct. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in Union of India Vs
J. Ahmed reported in (1979) 2 SCC 286, that “an act or omission or lack of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.6870 of 2016
efficiency or failure to attain highest standard of administrative ability may not
by itself amount to or constitute misconduct. Error of judgment in evaluating the
developing situation may be negligence in discharge of duty but would not
constitute misconduct”. The above judgment is followed in State of U.P and
others VS Ramesh Chandra Mangalik reported in 2002 3 SCC 443. Therefore,
following the aforesaid judgments this Court is of the considered opinion that
there is no misconduct as alleged and hence the punishment ought to be interfered
with. Accordingly, the impugned Government Order in G.O.(P)No.8, dated
14.01.2016 passed by the 1st respondent is hereby quashed and the consequential
benefits shall be granted to the petitioner. The direction shall be complied within
a period of six weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
9. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is allowed. There
shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are
closed.
Index : Yes / No 13.03.2023
Internet : Yes
ksa
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.6870 of 2016
To
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary,
Tourism Culture and Religious Endowments Department,
Fort Saint George, Chennai.
2. The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious Charitable Endowments Department,
Tirunelveli District.
3. The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious Charitable Endowments Department,
Tirunelveli District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.6870 of 2016
S.SRIMATHY, J
ksa
Order made in
W.P.(MD)No. 6870 of 2016
13.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
