Madras High Court
D.R.Varadarajan vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 17 October, 2024
W.P.No.15483 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.10.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
W.P.No.15483 of 2020
D.R.Varadarajan ...Petitioner
Vs.
The Government of Tamil Nadu
rep. by its Secretary,
Animal Husbandry, Dairying & Fisheries (FS-III) Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 9. ...Respondent
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying
to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the respondent in
G.O.Ms.No.(D).No.82, Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries (FS-3)
Department, dated 24.02.2020 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Ravichandran
For Respondent : Mr.A.M.Ayyadurai,
Government Advocate
ORDER
The instant Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order of
punishment dated 24.02.2020.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that,
according to the charge memorandum dated 20.06.2014, the petitioner was
charged for recommending 102 ineligible fishermen to get the Government
grant flowing from G.O.Ms.No.76, Animal Husbandry, Dairying & Fisheries
(FS3) Department, dated 30.05.2008, however, there are no records to show
that the petitioner has recommended such 102 persons. However, the Enquiry
Officer without any materials has given a positive report, and mulcted the
petitioner with responsibility, for the loss of Rs.2,04,000/- to the Government.
It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, without
following due procedure and without even furnishing the documents, an
erroneous Enquiry Report was filed by the Enquiry Officer, which was
mechanically accepted by the Disciplinary Authority, and that without even
discussing the defence of the petitioner, the punishment of withholding of
increment for a period of three months without cumulative effect was imposed
against the petitioner. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that, he did not commit any delinquency and that, having been
retired, the punishment would be a stigma in his long unblemished career of
Government service. Therefore, he prayed to set aside the order of punishment.
3.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate would vehemently
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
contend that, the charge is not only for the recommendation of the ineligible
beneficiaries, but also for not following the procedures as contemplated in
G.O.Ms.No.76, dated 30.05.2008, thus contended that the finding of the
Enquiry Officer is perfectly in order. Therefore, prayed to dismiss this petition
as there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, he prayed
for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
4.I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.
5.As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the
Enquiry Report, there is a reference that the petitioner's request for furnishing
the alleged recommendation letter, said to have been given by the petitioner,
was not furnished to him. However, on careful reading of the charge
memorandum, we could find two limbs. The first limb is not following the
procedure as contemplated under G.O.Ms.No.76, and the second limb is
recommending 102 ineligible members, as a consequence causing loss to the
Government to the tune of Rs.2,04,000/-.
6.While looking at the Enquiry Report, as rightly contended by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, there are no records to show the alleged
recommendation of ineligible persons. However, while considering another
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
limb of the charge qua non adherence to the procedure, as contemplated under
GOs, the Enquiry Officer relied upon so many Registers maintained in the
Department and found material against the petitioner. Therefore, it is obvious
that, there is some material against the petitioner, to arrive at a positive
conclusion. It is pertinent to mention that, while exercising the power of
judicial review, this Court cannot go into the sufficiency of the material or
interfere with order unless it is perverse. Further, while exercising the power of
judicial review, this Court even cannot reappreciate the evidence, and can't take
an alternative view.
7.In this regard, it is useful to refer to the Judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in B.C.Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India reported in
(1995) 6 SCC 749. The relevant paragraphs are paragraphs 12 & 18 and the
same read as follows:-
“12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a
review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of
judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives
fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the
authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court.
When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a
public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine
whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether
rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted
with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and
authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding
must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of
Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein,
apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that
evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the
disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer
is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of
judicial review does not act as appellate authority to reappreciate
the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the
evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority
held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner
inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of
statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the
conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is
based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no
reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal
may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the
relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case.
13. ..............
14. ...............
15. ...............
16. ................
17. ................
18. A review of the above legal position would establish that the
disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority,
being fact-finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested
with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in
view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High
Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review,
cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and
impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the
disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the
conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately
mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate
authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the
litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose
appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.
(Emphasis supplied by this Court)
8.In Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) Vs. Ajai Kumar
Srivastava reported in (2021) 2 SCC 612, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
if the decision is against the natural justice, then the same can be interfered. The
relevant paragraphs are paragraphs 25 & 29 and the same read as follows:-
“25. It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the
Constitutional Courts, is an evaluation of the decision-making
process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure
fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The
Court/Tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the
delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with the Rules of
natural justice or in violation of the statutory Rules prescribing the
mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the
disciplinary authority if based on no evidence. If the conclusion or
finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
or where the conclusions upon consideration of the evidence
reached by the disciplinary authority is perverse or suffers from
patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a
writ of certiorari could be issued. To sum up, the scope of judicial
review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or
reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact.
26. ......
27. .......
28. ........
29. The Constitutional Court while exercising its jurisdiction of
judicial review Under Article 226 or Article 136 of the
Constitution would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at
in the departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of
malafides or perversity, i.e., where there is no evidence to support
a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably
and with objectivity could have arrived at that findings and so
long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at
by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained.”
Through the above judgments, the following principles are emerging:-
(i) Power of Judicial review is not like an appeal. But
such power is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair
treatment and to ensure the compliance of natural justice.
(ii) The power of judicial review is not like a appellate
remedy to substitute its own finding, unless the findings of the
Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority is perverse and
without evidence.
(iii) The High Court had no jurisdiction to review the
penalty, unless it is shockingly disproportionate.
(iv) Since because there is a possibility to arrive at yet
another finding, cannot be a reason to substitute the finding of
the disciplinary Authority.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(v) The judicial review is meant only to ensure fairness in
treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion.
(vi) While exercising the power of judicial review, so long as there
is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental
authority, the same has to be sustained.
9.Accordingly, when there are some material to support the charge for
not following the procedures as contemplated under G.O.Ms.No.76, dated
30.05.2008, this Court could not find any perversity or infirmity in the Enquiry
Report. Coming into the proportionality of punishment, the Disciplinary
Authority has taken into consideration of all the aspects and imposed
appropriate proportionate punishment of withholding of the increment for a
period of three years, which according to me not disproportionate. In view of
what has been stated herein above, there are no grounds to interfere even the
punishment. Accordingly, this Court could not find any merits in this Writ
Petition.
In the result, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
17.10.2024
Index :Yes/No
Speaking order :Yes/No
Neutral citation :Yes/No
mps
To
The Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Animal Husbandry, Dairying &
Fisheries (FS-III) Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 9.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C. KUMARAPPAN, J.
mps
17.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
