Madras High Court
K.Nagarajan vs / on 3 October, 2024
Author: Abdul Quddhose
Bench: Abdul Quddhose
W.P.(MD)No.23506 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 03.10.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
W.P.(MD)No.23506 of 2016
and
W.P.(MD)No.16873 to 16875 of 2016
K.Nagarajan ... Petitioner
/Vs./
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Registration Department,
Fort St. George, Secretariat,
Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Inspector General Of Registration,
Santhome High Road,
Chennai - 600 028.
3.The District Registrar,
Dindigul District,
Dindigul. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records
pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in No.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.23506 of 2016
56651/Aa1/2007, dated 16.06.2015, quash the same with regard to
imposing punishment of recovery of 1/3rd amount from the pension and
consequently direct the respondents to pay the full pension and terminal
benefits due to the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.J.Karthick
For Respondents : Mr.P.Subbaraj
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order
dated 16.06.2015 passed by the second respondent imposing the
punishment of recovery of 1/3rd amount from his pension payable to the
petitioner, for a period of five years.
2. The petitioner was earlier working as Sub-Registrar and is now
retired from service. While in service, he had allowed registration of the
sale deed dated 19.12.2001 belonging to a trust. The petitioner claims
that as on the date of registration, ie., on 19.12.2001, the subject property
was belonging to a trust and not to a temple. According to the petitioner,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
erroneously, by total non-application of mind to the said fact,
departmental proceedings has been initiated against the petitioner by the
respondents claiming that the property which was allowed to be
registered by the petitioner as Sub-Registrar on 19.12.2001 is a temple
property. Pursuant to the departmental proceedings, the petitioner has
been punished with 1/3rd cut from his pension amount for a period of five
years, under the impugned order dated 16.06.2015 passed by the second
respondent. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition has been filed on
the following grounds:
(a) Despite the fact that the alleged incident, for which the
petitioner has been charged was on 19.12.2001, the respondents have
initiated the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner only in the
year 2008, which is an inordinate delay;
(b) Despite the fact that on 19.12.2001 when the petitioner
permitted registration of the document in respect of the property, which
was not a temple land, the respondents have arbitrarily and illegally
initiated the disciplinary proceedings against him. According to the
petitioner, subsequently ie., on 20.07.2004, the subject property was
classified as a temple land and therefore, the petitioner cannot be charged
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
on the ground that he had allowed registration of the document in respect
of a temple land on 19.12.2001.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents reiterating
the contents of the impugned order by once again stating that the
property, which was allowed to be registered by the petitioner on
19.12.2001 is a temple land.
4. However, as seen from the documents filed along with this writ
petition, which are not disputed by the respondents, it is clear that as on
19.12.2001, when the petitioner permitted registration of the document of
the property involved in the said document, the property was admittedly
not a temple land. A-Register pertaining to the property as on
19.12.2001 has also been produced by the petitioner along with this writ
petition, which confirms that as on the date of registration of the
document ie., on 19.12.2001, the property was not a temple land and it
was belonging to a trust. The petitioner has also produced the order
obtained by the seller (trust) in a petition in O.P.No.44 of 2001 dated
18.12.2001 on the file of the District Judge, Dindigul, under which the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
said trust was granted permission to sell the property. The correction of
the A-Register, pursuant to the order passed by the Joint Commissioner
has also been placed on record. As seen from the same, the subject
property became a temple land only with effect from 20.07.2004.
Therefore, it is clear that on 19.12.2001, when the document involving
the subject property was permitted by the petitioner for registration, the
subject property was not a temple land.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew the
attention of this Court to a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated
05.09.2019 passed in WP.No.14481 of 2019 reported in 2019 Supreme
Madras 269 in the case of M.Mary Kala Jayanthi vs. Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore at Allikulam Complex, Chennai and
Others and would submit that as per the said decision, it is clear that the
departmental proceedings initiated beyond the period prescribed under
Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Tamilnadu Pension Rules, 1978 is time barred.
Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Tamilnadu Pension Rules, 1978 makes it clear that
any departmental proceedings will have to be initiated within a period of
four years from the date of the incident.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. In the instant case, the date of the incident was on 19.12.2001.
Whereas the departmental proceedings has been initiated against the
petitioner only in the year 2008, after a lapse of more than seven years
from the date of the incident. Therefore, it is clear that the departmental
proceedings initiated against the petitioner is time barred. However, by
total non-application of mind to the same, the punishment order has been
imposed against the petitioner in the impugned order.
7. On the ground that the property on the date of the registration,
ie., on 19.12.2001 was not a temple land and also on the ground that the
departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner is time barred as
per Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Tamilnadu Pension Rules, 1978, this Court
will have to necessarily quash the impugned order, under which
erroneously by total non-application of mind, the punishment of 1/3rd
pension cut for a period of five years, has been imposed on the petitioner.
8. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated
16.06.2015 is hereby quashed and this writ petition is allowed by
directing the second respondent to pay the arrears of pension amount to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the petitioner, 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.
03.10.2024
Index : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
Sm
TO:
1.The Principal Secretary,
Registration Department,
Fort St. George, Secretariat,
Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Inspector General Of Registration,
Santhome High Road,
Chennai - 600 028.
3.The District Registrar,
Dindigul District,
Dindigul.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
Sm
Order made in
Dated:
03.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
