Madras High Court
The District Collector vs M.Rameshkumar on 16 April, 2025
Author: S.S.Sundar
Bench: S.S.Sundar, C.Saravanan
W.A.No.719 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 07.02.2025
Pronounced on 16.04.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.A.No.719 of 2022
1.The District Collector,
Collectorate,
Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.
2.The Assistant Project Officer,
(Accounts & Administration),
District Project Management Unit,
Tamil Nadu State Rural
Livelihood Mission,
Tiruppur District. ... Appellants / Respondents
Vs.
M.Rameshkumar,
S/o. Late R.Mylsamy ... Respondent / Petitioner
Prayer: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the Order dated
09.12.2021 passed in W.P.No.24071 of 2021.
For Appellants : Mr.G.Nanmaran
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.R.Prem Narayan
JUDGMENT
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:55 pm )
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by C.SARAVANAN, J.)
This Intra-Court Appeal has been filed against the Order dated
09.12.2021 passed by the Writ Court in W.P.No.24071 of 2021.
2. The said Writ Petition was filed by the Respondent/Writ Petitioner for
the following relief:-
“Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records
pertaining to the charge memo issued by the first respondent
herein in his Na.Ka.No.71/2019/V1, dated 19.08.2021 and the
consequential order of the first respondent herein passed in his
Roc.No.71/2019/V1, dated 12.10.2021 appointing the second
respondent herein as Inquiry Officer and quash the same.”
3. By the Impugned Order dated 09.12.2021, the Writ Court allowed the
Writ Petition in W.P.No.24071 of 2021 filed by the Respondent/Writ Petitioner
with the following observations:-
“7. Heard both sides and perused the materials
available on record.
8. It is to be noted that challenge to the charge memo
and the disciplinary procedings, is on the basis of the well
settled legal position that the charge memo issued under
Rule 17(b) of the said Rules, is not maintainable and such
charge(s) had to be framed only by the Tribunal concerned,
which is vested with the power in corruption cases.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:55 pm )
9. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the issue involved in this Writ Petition is
squarely and directly covered in favour of the petitioner
based on the above extracted orders of this Court. This
Court has to necessarily hold that the impugned charge
memo is wholly without authority of law and the same is
invalid and liable to be quashed.
10. In the said circumstances, this Writ Petition is
allowed. The impugned charge memo dated 19.08.2021
passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.71/2019/V1,
and the consequential order appointing the second
respondent as Enquiry Officer, in Roc.No.71/2019/V1,
dated 12.10.2021, are set aside. The respondents are at
liberty to proceed against the petitioner by invoking the
correct provision of law, if so advised, as criminal
proceedings now initiated against the petitioner under the
provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, as
amended, cannot be invoked against the petitioner, more
particularly, under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules.
11. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P is closed.”
4. The Writ Court while passing the aforesaid impugned order dated
09.12.2021 in W.P.No.24071 of 2021 has relied upon the decisions of this Court
rendered in the following cases:-
1. M.Arumugam and another Vs. The Additional Director General
of Police, Crime, Chennai - 600 008 in W.P.Nos.354 and 357 of 2019
dated 06.08.2021.
2. M.Mohamed Khan Vs. The Additional Director General of Police,
Crime, Chennai - 600 008 in W.P.No.516 of 2019 dated 15.07.2021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:55 pm )
5. The Appellants, who were the Respondents in the Writ Petition had
initiated departmental proceedings against the Respondent/Writ Petitioner based
on a complaint given by one T.K.Jagan of Tiruppur District against the
Respondent/Writ Petitioner alleging that the Respondent/Writ Petitioner, who is
a Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat) Panchayat Union Office,
Udumaplet, Tiruppur District had demanded a bribe of Rs.15,000/- for
regularization of unapproved house sites.
6. It appears that the Appellants had set a trap in the presence of official
witnesses. The Respondent/Writ Petitioner appears to have been caught red
handed pursuant to the 'Phenolphthalein Test' that was conducted on the right
hand fingers and the left side inner pocket of the shirt of the Respondent/Writ
Petitioner' turning positive.
7. The Respondent/Writ Petitioner was therefore, placed under suspension
on 05.01.2019. The Suspension Order dated 05.01.2019 was challenged by the
Respondent/Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.403 of 2020. The aforesaid Suspension
Order dated 05.01.2019 was revoked vide Order dated 02.07.2020 in
Proceedings Roc.No.71/2019/VI pursuant to the directions of the Writ Court in
W.P.No.403 of 2020 vide Order dated 09.01.2020.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:55 pm )
8. Thus, the Vigilance Commissioner, Secretariat, Chennai – 9 vide letter
dated 23.12.2020 bearing Ref.No.Rc.11/2019/RDP/TPR informed that a
criminal case has been registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 as amended by the Prevention of Corruption
(Amendment) Act, 2018 on 03.01.2019 against the Respondent/Writ Petitioner
after obtaining necessary sanction order from the competent authority.
9. It appears that a Charge Sheet dated 20.11.2020 has also been filed
against the Respondent/Writ Petitioner before the Chief Judicial Magistrate-
cum-Special Judge, Tiruppur District in Spl.C.C.No.3 of 2020. The
Investigating Authority has requested the Government to initiate departmental
action against the Respondent/Writ Petitioner vide G.O.(2D) No.22, Rural
Development and Panchayat Raj (E2) Department dated 14.02.2020.
10. Pursuant to the aforesaid Government Order, the Director, Rural
Development and Panchayat Raj Department vide Communication dated
28.02.2020 bearing Ref.Roc.No.3025/2020/VCII-2 requested the the 1st
Appellant, the District Collector (Development), Tiruppur District, to initiate
appropriate disciplinary proceedings against the Respondent/Writ Petitioner as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:55 pm )
directed by the Government and to report directly to the Directorate regarding
the aforesaid disciplinary proceedings.
11. It is in this background, the 1st Appellant issued Charge Memo dated
19.08.2021 bearing Na.Ka.No.71/2019/V1 against the Respondent/Writ
Petitioner. The following charges were framed in the adoresaid Charge Memo
dated 19.08.2021 against the Respondent/Writ Petitioner:-
Fw;wr;rhl;Lfs; Charges
Fw;wr;rhl;L vz;/1 Charge No.1:
jpUg;g{h; khtl;l Cuf tsh;r;rp Thiru.M.Rameshkumar, Formerly
myfpw;Fl;gl;l cLkiyg;ngl;il Block Development Officer (Village
Panchayat), Udumalpet Panchayat
tl;lhuj;jpy; tl;lhu tsh;r;rp Union, Tiruppur District, now Block
mYtyuhfg; (fpuhk Cuhl;rp) Development Officer (Election),
gzpg[hpe;jtUk; jw;nghJ tl;lhu Collectorate, Tiruppur District had
tsh;r;rp mYtyh; (njh;jy;) Mfg; been arrested by Vigilance and Anti-
gzpg[hpe;J tUgtUkhd Corruption Department, Tiruppur on
jpU/vk;/unkco;Fkhh; vd;gth;. 03.01.2019 at 14.00 hours in case
jpU/fhspKj;J vd;gth; bgahpy; Cr.No.1/2019/AC/TPR under Section
7 of the Prevention of Corruption
,Ue;j tud;Kiwg;gLj;jg;glhj (Amendment) Act, 2018 for
kidia jdpkidahf tud;Kiw demanding and accepting a bribe of
bra;a[k; bghUl;L ,y";rk; Rs.15,000/- from Thiru.Jegan in
nfhhpajhf jpU/b$fd; vd;gth; connection with issue order for
g[fhh; bjhptpj;jijaLj;J. CHy; regularization of unapproved house
jLg;g[ kw;Wk; fz;fhzpg;g[ gphpt[ sites in the name of Tr.Kalimuthu
and was remanded to Judicial
Fw;wvz;/1-2019-AC/TPR, rl;lg;gphpt[ Custody on 03.01.2019 and he was
7 CHy; jLg;g[ (jpUj;jg;gl;l) rl;lk; lodged in Central Prison, Coimbatore
2018 gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;L. 03/01/2019 and detained in custody for more
kjpak; 14/00 kzpastpy; than 48 hours. Therefore, under sub-
rule (e) of Rule 17 of Tamil Nadu
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:55 pm )
Fw;wr;rhl;Lfs; Charges
cLkiyg;ngl;il Cuhl;rp xd;wpa Civil Services (D&A) Rules, the said
mYtyfj;jpy; jpU/b$fd; Thiru.M.Rameshkumar, formerly
vd;gthplk; U:/15.000-? ,y";rk; Block Development Officer (Village
Panchayat), Udumalpet Panchayat
bgWk;bghGJ CHy; jLg;g[ kw;Wk; Union, Tiruppur District, now Block
fz;fhzpg;g[j;Jiwapduhy; ifa[k; Development Officer (Election),
fst[khf gpogl;L. mnj jpdj;jd;W Collectorate, Tiruppur District was
ifJ bra;ag;gl;L jpUg;g{h; khtl;l placed under deemed suspension
Kjd;ik Fw;wtpay; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; with effect from 03.01.2019 from
M$h;gLj;jp nfhak;g[j;J}h; kj;jpa service. By engaged in bribery
rpiwapy; milf;fg;gl;L 48 offenses which is punishable under
Indian Penal Code, he violated the
kzpneuj;jpw;F nkyhf fhtypy; office procedures and caused
itf;fg;gl;lijj;bjhlh;e;J jkpH;ehL disrepute to the district
Foikg;gzpfs; (xG';F kw;Wk; administration.
nky;KiwaPL) tpjp 17(e)-d;go.
jpU/vk;/unkco;Fkhh; vd;gtiu
jpUg;g{h; khtl;l Ml;rpj;jiyth;
mth;fspd; eltof;iffs;
e/f/vz;/71-2019-tp1. ehs;/05/01/2019-
d;go 03/01/2019 Kjy; jw;fhypf
gzpePf;fk; braag;gl;Ls;shh;/ ,jd;
fhuzkhf ,e;jpa Fw;wtpay;
rl;lj;jpd;go jz;of;fg;gLk; ,y";rk;
bgWjyhfpa Fw;wr;braypy; <Lgl;L
mYtyf eilKiw tpjpfis kPwp
mYtyfg;gzpfSf;F Fe;jfk;
tpistpj;Js;shh;/
Fw;wr;rhl;L vz;/2 Charge No.2:
jpUg;g{h; khtl;l Cuf tsh;r;rp Thiru.M.Rameshkumar, Formerly
myfpw;Fl;gl;l cLkiyg;ngl;il Block Development Officer (Village
Panchayat), Udumalpet Panchayat
tl;lhuj;jpy; tl;lhu tsh;r;rp Union, Tiruppur District, now Block
mYtyuhfg; (fpuhk Cuhl;rp) Development Officer (Election),
gzpg[hpe;jtUk; jw;nghJ tl;lhu Collectorate, Tiruppur District had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:55 pm )
Fw;wr;rhl;Lfs; Charges
tsh;r;rp mYtyh; (njh;jy;) Mfg; been arrested by Vigilance and Anti-
gzpg[hpe;J tUgtUkhd Corruption Department, Tiruppur on
jpU/vk;/unkco;Fkhh; vd;gth;. 03.01.2019 at 14.00 hours in case
Cr.No.1/2019/AC/TPR under Section
jpU/fhspKj;J vd;gth; bgahpy; 7 of the Prevention of Corruption
,Ue;j tud;Kiwg;gLj;jg;glhj (Amendment) Act, 2018 for
kidia jdpkidahf tud;Kiw demanding and accepting a bribe of
bra;a[k; bghUl;L ,y";rk; Rs.15,000/- from Thiru.Jegan in
nfhhpajhf jpU/b$fd; vd;gth; connection with issue order for
g[fhh; bjhptpj;jijaLj;J. CHy; regularization of unapproved house
jLg;g[ kw;Wk; fz;fhzpg;g[ gphpt[ sites in the name of Tr.Kalimuthu
and was remanded to Judicial
Fw;wvz;/1-2019-AC/TPR, rl;lg;gphpt[ Custody on 03.01.2019 and he was
7 CHy; jLg;g[ (jpUj;jg;gl;l) rl;lk; lodged in Central Prison, Coimbatore
2018 gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;L. 03/01/2019 and detained in custody for more
kjpak; 14/00 kzpastpy; than 48 hours. Such that he has
cLkiyg;ngl;il Cuhl;rp xd;wpa caused disrepute to the rural
mYtyfj;jpy; jpU/b$fd; development department and the
district administration due to
vd;gthplk; U:/15.000-? ,y";rk; misconduct.
bgWk;bghGJ CHy; jLg;g[ kw;Wk;
fz;fhzpg;g[j;Jiwapduhy; ifa[k;
fst[khf gpogl;L. mnj jpdj;jd;W
ifJ bra;ag;gl;L jpUg;g{h; khtl;l
Kjd;ik Fw;wtpay; ePjpkd;wj;jpy;
M$h;gLj;jp nfhak;g[j;J}h; kj;jpa
rpiwapy; milf;fg;gl;L 48
kzpneuj;jpw;F nkyhf fhtypy;
itf;fg;gl;lijj;bjhlh;e;J. jdJ
jtwhd elj;ijapdhy; Cuf
tsh;r;rpj;Jiwf;Fk;. khtl;l
eph;thfj;jpw;F mtg;bgah; Vw;glf;
fhuzkhf ,Ue;Js;shh;/
Fw;wr;rhl;L vz;/3 Charge No.3:
jpUg;g{h; khtl;l Cuf tsh;r;rp Thiru.M.Rameshkumar, Formerly
Block Development Officer (Village
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:55 pm )
Fw;wr;rhl;Lfs; Charges
myfpw;Fl;gl;l cLkiyg;ngl;il Panchayat), Udumalpet Panchayat
tl;lhuj;jpy; tl;lhu tsh;r;rp Union, Tiruppur District, now Block
mYtyuhfg; (fpuhk Cuhl;rp) Development Officer (Election),
Collectorate, Tiruppur District has
gzpg[hpe;jtUk; jw;nghJ tl;lhu failed to maintain absolute integrity
tsh;r;rp mYtyh; (njh;jy;) Mfg; and devotion to duty as stipulated in
gzpg[hpe;J tUgtUkhd Rule 20(1) of the Tamil Nadu
jpU/vk;/unkco;Fkhh; vd;gth;. Government Servants Conduct
tud;Kiwg; gLj;jg;glhj kidia Rules, 1973 by demanding and
jdpkidahf tud;Kiw bra;a[k; accepting a bribe in connection with
bghUl;L U:/15.000-? ,y";rkhf issue order for regularization of
unapproved house sites and by
bgw;W fL';Fw;wk; g[hpe;jjd; behaving irresponsibly and abusing
fhuzkhf tl;lhu tsh;r;rp mYtyh; his official position and causing
vd;w Kiwapy; bghWg;gw;w Kiwapy; disrepute to the district
ele;J bfhz;lnjhL mYtyf administration in the cadre of Block
eilKiwia kPwpa[k;. khtl;l Development Officer.
eph;thfj;jpw;F mtg;bgah;
Vw;glf;fhuzkha; ,Ue;Jk; jdJ
flikapy; neh;ika[k; gw;Wk;
bfhz;oUf;f jtwp jkpH;ehL
muRg;gzpahsh; ed;dlj;ij tpjp
20(1)I kPwpa[s;shh;/
12. The case of the Respondent/Writ Petitioner before the Writ Court in
WP.No.24071 of 2021 was that since the criminal proceedings were pending
before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruppur in Special C.C.No.3 of 2020
under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, initiation of the
departmental proceedings by the employer under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu
Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 was without jurisdiction.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:55 pm )
13. The Respondent/Writ Petitioner had also given an explanation vide
reply dated 13.09.2021 in response to the Charge Memo dated 19.08.2021
impugned in the Writ Petition in WP.No.24071 of 2021 before the Writ Court.
14. It is the case of the Respondent/Writ Petitioner that in the light of the
Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, initiation of the
departmental proceedings was without jurisdiction. In this connection,
reference was made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary
to Government of Tamil Nadu Vs. D.Subramanyan Rajadevan, AIR 1996
SC 2634.
15. Assailing the Impugned Order dated 09.12.2021 of the Writ Court in
W.P.No.24071 of 2021, the learned Special Government Pleader for the
Appellants would submit that the Impugned Order dated 09.12.2021 is liable to
be set aside.
16. It is submitted that Rule 4(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services
(Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955, makes it clear that the said
Rule is to Officers belonging to State Services. It is submitted that as per
G.O.No.585, Rural Development and Local Administration Department, dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:55 pm )
12.04.1984, the Respondent/Writ Petitioner belongs to Panchayat Development
Sub-ordinate Service. Hence, it is submitted that the provisions of the Tamil
Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955 is not
applicable in this case as the Respondent/Writ Petitioner belongs to Panchayat
Development Sub-ordiante Service.
17. It is submitted that even otherwise under Rule 5(b)(i) and 5(c) of the
Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955, all
the cases including corruption cases need not be compulsarily referred to the
Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal. It is upto the discretion of the Government
which to refer the case to the Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal.
18. It is submitted that on the recommendation of the appropriate
investigating authority, the Government issued orders to initiate Deparmental
Disciplinary Proceedings (DDP) against the Respondent/Writ Petitioner. It is
further submitted that the Appellants have initiated Departmental Disciplinary
Proceedings (DDP) against the Respondent/Writ Petitioner is within the
jurisdiction of laws.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:55 pm )
19. It is submitted that the Inquiry Officer was appointed as per Rule
17(g) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 and
after following the procedure laid down in G.O.(Ms) No.47, Personnel and
Administrative Reforms (N) Department dated 29.04.2011. It is further
submitted that both the criminal and departmental disciplinary proceedings
initiated by the Appellants against the Respondent/Writ Petitioner are on
different basis and there is no need to stay the proceedings of the 2nd Appellant.
20. It is submitted that the Government has not decided to refer the case
to the Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal. Instead, the Government, on the
recommendation of the concerned Department, has issued orders in G.O.(2D)
No.22, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (E2) Department dated
14.02.2020 as per Rule 5(b)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary
Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955, to initiate departmental action against the
Respondent/Writ Petitioner. Hence, the Appellants have framed charges against
the Respondent/Writ Petitioner under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil
Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. It is submitted that the said
decision ought not to have been interfered by the Writ Court by setting aside the
impugned Charge Memo dated 19.08.2021 issued by the 1st Appellant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:55 pm )
21. Learned counsel for the Respondent/Writ Petitioner on the other hand
submits that the Order of the Writ Court in W.P. No.24071 of 2021, which is
impugned herein is well-reasoned and does not warrant any interference.
22. The learned counsel for the Respondent/Writ Petitioner further
submitted that the Writ Court has correctly applied the law as settled by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Vs.
D.Subramanyan Rajadevan, AIR 1996 SC 2634 and therefore submits that
the present Writ Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
23. We have heard the learned Special Government Pleader for the
Appellants and the learned counsel for the Respondent/Writ Petitioner.
24. Both the Rules viz., the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary
Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955 as well as the Tamil Nadu Civil Services
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 have been framed by the Governor in the
exercise of power conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
25. The Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal)
Rules, 1955 replaced the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:55 pm )
Tribunal) Rules, 1948. Similarly, the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules, 1955 replaced the Madras Civil Services (Classification, Control
and Appeal) Rules, 1953.
26. The Charge Memo dated 19.08.2021 issued against the
Respondent/Writ Petitioner impugned before the Writ Court, has proposed to
impose a major penalty on Respondent/Writ Petitioner under Rule 8 read with
Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,
1955.
27. Provisions of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary
Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955 and the Tamil Nadu Civil Services
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 fell for consisderation before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Vs.
D.Subramanyan Rajadevan, AIR 1996 SC 2634.
28. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary to
Government of Tamil Nadu Vs. D.Subramanyan Rajadevan, AIR 1996 SC
2634, dealt with a situation where three charges were framed by the
Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Civil
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:55 pm )
Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955 on 21.11.1989 against
the Respondent/Delinquent therein.
29. The Respondent/Delinquent therein however challenged the Charge
Memo dated 21.11.1989 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal on the
ground that the charges framed against the Respondent/Delinquent for the
alleged misconduct between 05.06.1985 and 15.06.1986 were delayed and that
the charges were vague and in breach of the requirments of Rule 17 of the Tamil
Nadu Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1955.
[Presently, Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955].
30. The Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal thus quashed the charges
framed against the Respondent/Delinquent therein framed by the Disciplinary
Proceedings Tribunal as they failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 17
of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,
1953, which was referred to as the 'Civil Service Rules'.
31. The Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal quashed the disciplinary
proceedings against the Respondent/Delinquent with the following
observations:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:55 pm )
“We would consider that the substantive provisions
of Rule 17 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification,
Control and Appeal) Rules in regard to the functions and
powers of the disciplinary authority cannot be taken away
from such authority by the Tamil Nadu Civil Services
(Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955, which
relate only to the enquiry which is only a component of the
proceedings under Rule 17 of the Tamil Nadu Civil
Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules as we
have emphasised in our decision in OAs Nos. 712 and 713
of 1990 dated 26-2-1991 wherein we have held as below:
Rule 17(b)(1) therefore requires that (1) There should be a
decision that the facts and circumstances disclosed and the
evidence in support thereof constituting the basis for the
charge would justify one of the penalties specified therein if
the charges are established after the enquiry into which the
delinquent officer would have the opportunities as
prescribed to put forward his defence, (2) With reference to
the facts and circumstances disclosed and the evidence, the
charge or charges should be formulated to be
communicated to the person charged with a statement of
allegations on which these charges are based and other
circumstances which are proposed to be taken into
consideration, (3) Consideration of the written statement of
defence and a decision in regard to oral enquiry in the light
of the written statement of defence, the request of the
delinquent officer for an oral enquiry or otherwise,
consideration of the evidence in support of each charge to
decide whether oral evidence is necessary if the delinquent
has not asked for such enquiry, (4) The conduct of the
enquiry and the preparation of the report of the enquiry.
The enquiry can be conducted by the disciplinary authority
or by any authority designated by him. None of these can
be delegated except the functions of the Inquiry Officer.
Whether action should be initiated under Rule 17(b)(1) or
under Rule 17(a) of TNCS (CCA) Rules is a decision
which the disciplinary authority alone can take. That
decision cannot be taken by any lower authority
empowered to impose the penalties specified in Rule 17(a);
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:55 pm )
if such lower authority initiates actions and proceeds with
the elaborate enquiry as required under Rule 17(b)(1) and
thereafter the disciplinary authority is of the view that the
charges do not call for such proceedings, the entire
proceedings would become superfluous and the delinquent
would have been put to delay and inconvenience which
would have been avoided, if the proceedings had been
completed under Rule 17(a). The time and effort on the part
of the department could also have been saved. Therefore, at
this stage of formulation of charges on completion of the
investigation into the allegations, imputations, defaults or
misconduct a view has to be taken in the light of the results
of the investigation whether action under Rule 17(b) is
called for and only thereafter procedure as under that rule
can be invoked.
Further decisions involved viz., whether an oral enquiry is
needed which has to be taken after considering the written
statement of defence and the nature of the charges and
evidence in a case in which the delinquent does not ask for
oral enquiry, is again a decision which can be taken only by
the disciplinary authority because it involves a finding
whether the charges as formulated have to be enquired into
in the light of the written statement of defence, and if the
charges are supported by documentary evidence whether an
oral enquiry is necessary. A decision may be possible at that
stage and without such consideration, an oral enquiry could
not be proceeded with as a normal routine without a
specific decision.
After referring to the observations of the Supreme Court in
Union of India v. E.Bashyan [(1988) 2 SCC 196 : 1988
SCC (L&S) 531 : (1988) 7 ATC 285 : AIR 1988 SC 1000]
we have held that ‘the principle enunciated here is that the
decision of the disciplinary authority has to be his personal
decision after consideration of all the relevant facts and
circumstances and evidence on record and the
representation of the delinquent officer. This principle
should extend to the entire classes of disciplinary action
commencing from the stage of formulation of charges. As
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:55 pm )
already pointed out in paragraph 4, the decisions involved
are for personal consideration by the disciplinary authority
and cannot be delegated. Any decision in the course of the
disciplinary action has to be that of the disciplinary
authority.”
32. The Government of Tamil Nadu preferred an appeal before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court against the aforesaid Order of the Tamil Nadu
Administrative Tribunal quashing the disciplinary proceedings initiated against
the Respondent/Delinquent therein by the Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal in
the aforesaid case.
33. It is in this context, in Paragraph 6, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
observed that the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal had failed to consider the
effect of Rule 2 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification, Control and
Appeal) Rules, 1955. [Presently, Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary and
Appeal) Rules, 1955].
34. Paragraph 6 from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
D.Subramanyan Rajadevan's case (cited supra) is reproduced below:-
“6. ....... Therefore, if we find any rule in any other
rule which excludes operation of any rule of the Civil
Service Rules then the said Rule will prevail over the
corresponding Rule in the Civil Service Rules. Rule 8 of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:55 pm )
Disciplinary Proceedings Rules, in clear terms, excludes
the operation of Rule 17 while conducting enquiries in
cases of corruption and also in cases of corruption
combined with other charges. The words “Notwithstanding
anything contained in Rule 17” are categorical and very
clearly disclose the intention of the rule-making authority
that while conducting enquiries in cases of corruption and
also in cases of corruption combined with other charges
the procedure prescribed in Rule 8 has to be followed and
not the procedure prescribed in Rule 17 of the Civil Service
Rules. As stated earlier, the Disciplinary Proceedings Rules
are special rules in the matter of holding disciplinary
proceedings against government servants in cases of
corruption. It was desired by the Government that such
cases should be enquired into by a special Tribunal
consisting of a judicial officer of the rank of District and
Sessions Judge. The findings and recommendations of the
Tribunal ordinarily have to be accepted by the Government
and if it wants to take a different decision it has to comply
with the requirements of Rule 11. Even in regard to the
passing of final orders in cases enquired into by the
Tribunal the special procedure contained in Rule 10 of the
Disciplinary Rules has to be followed, notwithstanding
anything contained in the Civil Service Rules. Clause (d) of
Rule 8 of the Disciplinary Proceedings Rules also makes
the position clear when it provides that the provisions of
the Civil Service Rules shall apply in regard to the
procedure to be followed in cases other than those of
corruption and in regard to any other matter for which no
specific provision has been made in the Disciplinary
Proceedings Rules.
7. As we are of the view that this being a case of
corruption Rule 17 of the Civil Service Rules did not apply,
it is not necessary to deal with the requirements of Rule 17
and the question whether the view of the Tribunal in that
behalf is correct. We may, however, draw attention to the
decision of this Court in Inspector General of Police v.
Thavasiappan [(1996) 2 SCC 145 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 433 :
(1996) 32 ATC 663] wherein a similar rule in Tamil Nadu
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:55 pm )
Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,
1955 was considered. In that case it has been held that
Rule 3(b) of the said Rules is a procedural provision and
does not provide that the disciplinary authority itself
should frame a charge and if a charge memo is prepared by
any other authority then it has to be regarded as invalid. As
regards the decision of this Court in Managing Director,
U.P. Warehousing Corpn. v. Vijay Narayan Vajpayee
[(1980) 3 SCC 459 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 453 : (1980) 2 SCR
773] , to which our attention was drawn, we fail to
appreciate how the decision can be of any help to the
respondent. There is no such principle of natural justice
that before holding a regular departmental enquiry the
disciplinary authority itself should hold a preliminary
enquiry by first drawing up a charge memo and then
calling for the written statement of defence before taking a
decision to hold a regular departmental enquiry.
8.The view taken by the Tribunal in this case being
wholly wrong, we allow this appeal and set aside the
judgment and order passed by the Tribunal in OA No.
2587 of 1990, with the result that it will be open to the
appellant to proceed further with the enquiry pursuant to
the charge memo dated 21-11-1989. No order as to costs.”
35. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also observed that the aforesaid Rule 2 of
the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1955,
[presently, Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal)
Rules, 1955] will not apply to the extent it is otherwise expressly provided by or
under any law for the time being in force or in any Rule.
36. In Paragraph 4, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.Subramanyan
Rajadevan's case (cited supra) further observed as under:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:55 pm )
“4. We find considerable substance in the
contentions raised on behalf of the appellant. The Madras
Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules
now known as Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification,
Control and Appeal) Rules have been framed by the
Government in exercise of the powers conferred by the
proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. They
came into force on and from 1-1-1955. So also the Madras
Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules,
1955 now known as the Tamil Nadu Civil Services
(Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955 have been
framed by the Government in exercise of the powers
conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution
of India. They also came into force on 1-1-1955. Rule 2 of
the Civil Service Rules provides that they shall apply to
every member of the Civil Service of the State and to
every person holding a civil post under the State except to
the extent otherwise expressly provided: (i) by or under
any law for the time being in force or in any rule, (ii) in
respect of any such member by contract or agreement
subsisting between such member or person and the
Government. Part III of the Civil Service Rules makes
provision for discipline penalties. The Rules contained in
that part have specified the penalties which can be
imposed, the authorities which can impose those penalties
and Rule 17 provides the procedure which has to be
followed before any of the penalties can be imposed. If it is
proposed to impose a minor penalty then the procedure
prescribed in Rule 17(a) has to be followed, but where it is
proposed to impose a major penalty, i.e., any of the
penalties specified in Items (iv), (vi), (vii) and (viii) of Rule
8, then the procedure contained in Rule 17(b) has to be
followed. Like the Civil Service Rules, the Disciplinary
Proceedings Rules apply to all the officers under the rule-
making control of the State Government. Rule 2 thereof
defines corruption by stating that it shall have the same
meaning as criminal misconduct by a public servant under
Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
Rule 3 provides for constitution of “Tribunals for
Disciplinary Proceedings”. Each such Tribunal has to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:55 pm )
consist of one person only who shall be a judicial officer of
the rank of District and Sessions Judge. The Disciplinary
Tribunal has to enquire into such cases as may be referred
to the Tribunal and clause (a) of sub-rule (1) thereof reads
as under:-
“Cases relating to government servants on
a monthly salary of Rs 200 and above, in
respect of matters involving corruption on
the part of such government servants in the
discharge of their official duties.”
Rule 5 inter alia provides that in every case referred to in
clause (a) of sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (2) of Rule 4, on
completion of investigation, the Directorate of Vigilance
and Anti-Corruption or any other branch of the police or
other departmental authority concerned, shall forward to
the Government all the records of the case. It further
provides that the Government shall, after examining such
records and after consulting the head of the department
concerned, if necessary, decide whether the case shall be
tried in a Court of Law or by the Tribunal. It is then
provided that if the Government decides that the case shall
be tried by the Tribunal, they shall send the records to the
Tribunal. Rule 8 which is an important Rule for the
purpose of this appeal, provides the procedure to be
followed in conducting the enquiries soon after receiving
the records of such cases from the Government. The
material part of that Rule reads as under:-
“8. (a)(i) Notwithstanding anything
contained in Rule 17 of the Madras Civil
Services (Classification, Control and
Appeal) Rules, the following procedure shall
be adopted by the Tribunal in conducting
enquiries in cases of corruption and also in
cases of corruption combined with other
charges. As soon as the records relating to
allegations of corruption or of corruption
combined with other charges against a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:55 pm )
government servant are received, the
Tribunal shall frame appropriate charges,
communicate them to the person charged
together with a list of witnesses likely to be
examined in respect of each of the charges
and with information as to the date and
place of enquiry….”
Clause (d) of the said Rule provides that the provisions of
the Madras Civil Services (Classification, Control and
Appeal) Rules shall apply—(i) in regard to the procedure to
be followed in cases other than those of corruption; and
(ii) in regard to any other matter for which no specific
provision has been made in the Disciplinary Proceedings
Rules. Under Rule 9 the Tribunal has to send its finding
and recommendations to the Government together with its
opinion after the enquiry is completed. Rule 10 provides
the procedure to be adopted in regard to the passing of
final orders in cases enquired into by the Tribunal
notwithstanding anything contained in the Madras Civil
Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. Rule
11 requires that the advice of the Tribunal should
ordinarily be accepted. In a case where the Government
decides to disagree with the recommendations of the
Tribunal, it has to refer back the case to the Tribunal and it
can take the final decision only after taking into
consideration the remarks of the Tribunal.”
37. As per Rule 2 of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal)
Rules, 1955, its provision applies to:-
(i) every member of a Civil Service of the State;
(ii) to every person holding a civil post under
the State.
38. Exception to the above rule is where it is expressly provided under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:55 pm )
any of the following circumstances, namely:-
(i) by or under law for the time being in force or in any
rule;
(ii) in respect of any such member by contract or
agreement subsisting between such member or person
and the Government.
39. On the other hand, the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary
Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955, applies to all Officers under the Rule-
Making Control of the State Government and to all Officers of the Municipal
Corporations as in Rule 1(c) of the aforesaid Rules. The expression 'civil post'
and 'civil service' have been used in Article 311 of the Constitution of India.
40. Rule 1(c) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline Proceedings
Tribunal) Rules, 1955 and Rule 2 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline
Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955 are reproduced below for the sake of clarity:-
Rule 2 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Rule 1(c) of the Tamil Nadu Civil
Services (Discipline and Appeal) Services (Discipline Proceedings
Rules, 1955 Tribunal) Rules, 1955
(2) They shall apply to every member (1)(c) They shall apply to -
of the civil service of the state and to (i) all officers under the rule-making
every person holding a civil post control of the State
under the State except to the extent Government;[other than those
otherwise expressly provided:- referred to in Article 314* of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:55 pm )
Rule 2 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Rule 1(c) of the Tamil Nadu Civil
Services (Discipline and Appeal) Services (Discipline Proceedings
Rules, 1955 Tribunal) Rules, 1955
(i) by or under any law for the time Constitution of India]
being in force or in any rule; (ii) all officers of the Municipal
(ii) in respect of any such member by Corporations.
contract or agreement subsisting
between such member or person and
the Government.
*Article 314 of the Constitution of India has been repealed
vide 28th Amendment to the Constitution with effect from 29.08.1972.
41. These Rules compliment each other. The provisions of the Tamil
Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955 will apply
to all persons who are governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Civil
Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2015 who are officers under the rule
making control of the State Government, apart from all the officers of the
Municipal Corporations who are expressly governed by Tamil Nadu Civil
Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955.
42. The exception in Rule 2 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline
and Appeal) Rules, 2015 are applicable only to those persons who are governed
by any other law or under any other rule and/or to any other persons who are
governed by a contract or any agreement with the Government who may or may
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:55 pm )
not be governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline
and Appeal) Rules, 2015.
43. However, even those persons may be proceeded under Tamil Nadu
Civil Services (Discipline Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955 if they satisfy the
two criteria in Rule 1(c) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline
Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955.
44. Rule 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings
Tribunal) Rules, 1955 contemplates that the Government may constitute as
many Tribunals for 'Disciplinary Proceeding' as may be necessary for the
purpose of the said Rules.
45. As per Rule 3(3) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary
Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955, each Tribunal is required to enquire into
such cases “as may be referred” or “transferred to it” by the Government under
the aforesaid Rules. The Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal has to advise the
Government in such cases. Rule 3(3) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services
(Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955 reads as under:-
“3. (1) .....
(2) .....
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:55 pm )
(3) Each Tribunal shall enquire into such cases as may be
referred or transferred to it by the Government under these
rules and advise the Government in such cases.”
46. However, as per Rule 3(3) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services
(Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955 only those cases which are
transferred by the Government to the Tribunal will have to be enquired by the
Tribunal under the provisions of the aforesaid Rules.
47. As per Rule 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline
Proceedings Rules, 1955, the Government shall refer the cases to the Tribunal
for Disciplinary Proceedings constituted under Rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu Civil
Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955 under the following
circumstances, namely:-
(a) Cases relating to Officers of the State Services in respect of
matters involving corruption on the part of such Officers;
and
(b) All appeals or petitions to the Government against orders
passed on charges of corruption and all disciplinary cases
in which the Government propose to revise original orders
passed on such charges.
48. Rule 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings
Tribunal) Rules, 1955 is reproduced under:-
“4. (1) The Government shall, subject to the provisions of rule 5,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:55 pm )
refer the following cases to the Tribunal, namely:-
(a) Cases relating to Officers of the State Services in respect
of matters involving corruption on the part of such Officers;
and
(b) All appeals or petitions to the Government against orders
passed on charges of corruption and all disciplinary cases
in which the Government propose to revise original orders
passed on such charges;”
49. However, as per Proviso to Rule 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Civil
Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955 it shall not be
necessary to consult the Tribunal under the following circumstances:-
i. in any case in which the Tribunal has, at any previous stage,
given advice in regard to the order to be passed and no fresh
question has thereafter arisen for determination; or
ii. where the Government propose to pass orders rejecting such
appeal or petition.
50. The reference to be made under Rule 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Civil
Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955 is subject to Rule 5 of
the afore mentioned Rules. The use of the expression “shall” in Rule 4(1) of the
Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955
indicates there is no discretion vested with the Government. This is also
discernible from a cursory reading of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in D.Subramanyan Rajadevan's case (cited supra).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:55 pm )
51. The Respondent/Writ Petitioner herein is a Block Development
Officer and is alleged to have demanded bribe from one T.K.Jagan of Tiruppur
District as mentioned in Paragraph No.5 of this Order. He was allegedly caught
red handed accepting bribe of Rs.15,000/- for regularising unapproved layouts.
52. If the Respondent/Writ Petitioner as a Block Development Officer, is
an Officer of the State Service, the Government will be mandatorily required to
refer the case to the Disciplinary Proceeding Tribunal on a plain reading of Rule
4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceeding Tribunal) Rules,
1955 as the case relates to corruption.
53. It will be therefore useful to refer to some of the Government Orders
issued and the provisions in Vol-III, the Tamil Nadu Service Manual to
determine whether the Respondent/Writ Petitioner, a Block Development
Officer is an Officer of the State Service or not.
54. By G.O.(Ms)No.585, Rural Development and Local
Administration Department dated 12.04.1984, the Government of Tamil Nadu
constituted the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Development Subordinate Services,
for creating the following posts in for administration of Panchayats, namely:-
(i) Block Development Officer;
(ii) Deputy Block Development Officer; and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:55 pm )
(iii) Extension Officers.
55. By G.O.(Ms)No.587, Rural Development and Local
Administration Department dated 12.04.1984, the Government of Tamil Nadu
issued the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Development Subordinate Services Rule.
The aforesaid Rule is deemed to have come into force with effect from 1st June
1970.
56. The aforesaid service rule has been specified in the Tamil Nadu
Service Manual, Volume-III published in the year 2016 by the Government of
Tamil Nadu. In the aforesaid Tamil Nadu Service Manual, the aforesaid Rule
has been shown in Part III-B of the Special Rules.
57. As per the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Development Subordinate
Services Rule, the post of 'Block Development Officer' is a Category I Post.
As per Rule 4 of the aforesaid Rule, the Commissioner of Rural Development
and Panchayat Raj (now Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj) is
the Appointing Authority for all posts including the post of the 'Block
Development Officer' in Chennai District unit. As far as the respective Revenue
Districts are concerned, it is the Collector of the Revenue District concerned,
who is the Appointing Authority for all the posts under the aforesaid Rule.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:55 pm )
58. There is no doubt that a 'Block Development Officer' holds a 'civil
post' under the State. The post of the 'Block Development Officer' falls under
the ambit of Rule making control of the State Government. Therefore, the
'Block Development Officer' is an 'Officer of the State' for the purpose of Rule
4(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal)
Rules, 1955. In Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Vs. Thiru
M.Sannasi, 2001 (10) SCC 517, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also tacitly
accepted that a 'Block Development Officer' is an Officer of State Service who
was proceeded under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services
(Discipline Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955.
59. In fact, a reading of Rule 1(c) in conjunction with Rule 4(1)(a) of the
Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955,
does give a clear impression that in respect of matters involving corruption on
the part of “Officers of State services”, the case has to be mandatorily and
necessarily referred to the Tribunal constituted under Rule 3 of the aforesaid
Rules for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against an 'Officer of State
Services' if corruption is involved.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:55 pm )
60. Further, as per Rule 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services
(Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955, the Government while
exercising its power can also refer to the Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal,
any other case or class of cases which it considers should be dealt with by the
Tribunal. Rule 4(2) is however subject to the provisions of Rule 5 of the Tamil
Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955.
61. The Government while making a reference shall however have regard
to the nature and gravity of the charge, the grade or rank of the Officer charged
and the organisational strength of the Department concerned in handling cases
involving interpretation of rules regulating conditions of Service of Government
Servants.
62. There is also a special dispensation as far as the Officers of the Local
Authority under Rule 4(4) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary
Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955.
63. As per Rule 4(4) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary
Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955, the Executive Authority of a Local
Authority may, with the sanction of the Government and shall, if so required by
the Government, refer to the Tribunal cases of servants of the Local Authority,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:55 pm )
if they are involved in charges of corruption jointly with Government servants
whose cases have been referred to the Tribunal under the said Rule.
64. For the sake of clarity, Sub-Rule 4 to Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Civil
Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955 is reproduced below:-
“(4). The Executive Authority of a Local Authority may, with the
sanction of the Government and shall, if so required by the
Government, refer to the Tribunal cases of servants of the Local
Authority when they are involved in charges of corruption
jointly with Government servants whose cases are referred to
the Tribunal under this Rule. The cases so referred shall be
enquired into by the Tribunal in accordance with the Rules
relating to appointment and punishment of officers and servants
of the Local Authority.”
65. As per Rule 5(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary
Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955, where a reference is made under Rule 4(1)
or Rule 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline Proceedings Tribunal)
Rules, 1955 to the Tribunal, all records of the case shall be forwarded to the
Government on completion of investigation by the Directorate/ Departmental
Authority concerned.
66. Rule 5(a) of the the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipinary
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:55 pm )
Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955 reads as under:-
“5. (a) In every case referred to in clause (a) of sub-rule (1)
and sub-rule (2) of rule 4, on completion of
investigation, the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-
Corruption or any other Branch of the Police or other
departmental authority concerned, shall forward to the
Government all the records of the case;
Provided that the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-
Corruption shall forward its records to the Government
through the Vigilance Commissioner, Chennai.
Explanation.- For the purpose of this clause
investigation includes investigation made under the
General Law or any special enactment.”
67. There is however an exception to Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Civil
Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955 under Rule 5(b)(i) of
the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955
as it starts with a “non-obstanti” clause.
68. As per Rule 5(b)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary
Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955, notwithstanding anything contained in Rule
4, the Government shall after consulting the Head of the Department concerned,
if necessary, decide whether the case shall be tried in a Court of law or by the
Tribunal or by the Departmental Authority concerned. Thus, it is not
mandatory to refer the case to the Tribunal. Therefore, it is clear that not in all
cases of corruption, the case has to be mandatorily referred to the Disciplinary
Proceedings Tribunal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:55 pm )
69. Though, in Paragraph 4 of the decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Vs. D.Subramanyan Rajadevan,
AIR 1996 SC 2634 has referred to Rule 5(b)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Civil
Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955, it has not given a
categorical view on the same. It has only made a reference to it as a passing
remark.
70. In fact, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case,
is also not an authority to infer a ratio that in every case of corruption, the
Government has to perforce and mandatorily refer the case to Disciplinary
Proceedings Tribunal for framing charges.
71. It is evident that there the Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal had
framed the charges. However, the charges framed were quashed by the State
Administrative Tribunal on the ground that they were vague and belated.
72. Therefore, merely because the decision of the State Administrative
Tribunal impugned before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was set aside by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, ipso facto would not mean that the Hon'ble Supreme
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:55 pm )
Court has held that in every case of corruption, the Government has to
mandatorily refer the case to the aforesaid Tribunal for framing charges.
73. In fact, neither the State Administrative Tribunal nor the Hon'ble
Supreme Court had an ocasssion to consider the said issue and lay down a
principle that in every case of corruption, the Government has to be
mandatorily refer the case to the Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal.
74. It will also be useful to refer to the well settled principles of law that
a decision of the Court is only an authority for what it has decided and has laid
down. The decision is also not an authority to what flows from it or can be
logically deduced from it. In this connection, a reference is made to the decison
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Southern Petrochemical Industries Co. Ltd.
v. Electricity Inspector & ETIO, (2007) 5 SCC 447.
75. While exercising the power conferred under Rule 5(b)(i) of the Tamil
Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955, the
Government shall under Rule 5(b)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services
(Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955, have regard to the following:-
(a) the nature and gravity of the charge;
(b) the grade or rank of the officer charged; and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:55 pm )
(c) any other circumstances relevant to the case.
76. Rule 5(b)(i) and Rule 5(b)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services
(Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955 are reproduced below for sake
of clarity:-
Rule 5(b)(i) Rule 5(b)(ii)
Notwithstanding anything contained In exercising the power conferred by
in Rule 4, the Government shall after Clause (i), the Government shall have
consulting the head of the Department regard to-
concerned, if necessary, decide (a) the nature and gravity of the
whether the case shall be tried in a charge;
Court of law or by the Tribunal or by (b) the grade or rank of the Officer
the Departmental Authority charged; and
concerned. (c) any other circumstances relevant
to the case.
77. Thus, a cumulative reading of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Civil
Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955 makes it clear that
although the word “shall” has been used in Rule 4(1), a reference to the
Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal need not be made mandatory even if
“corruption” is involved.
78. Further, the decision was rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
D.Subramanyan Rajadevan's case (cited supra) on 09.07.1996 in respect of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:55 pm )
the alleged delinquency committed by the said delinquent therein between
05.06.1985 and 15.06.1986 in respect of which, Charge Memo dated
21.11.1989 was issued by the Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal. Rule 8B was
inserted in Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal)
Rules, 1955 vide G.O.Ms.No. G.O.(Ms) No.188, Personnel and Administrative
Reforms (N) Department dated 08.06.1995. The aforesaid Rule was also not
there when the charges were framed 21.11.1989 against the said delinquent in
the said case.
79. Further, Rule 8A and Rule 8B of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services
(Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955 make it clear that even after a
reference is made to the Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal, the case can be
withdrawn by the Government, at a later point of time for further action by the
Head of the Department under whom the deliquent was serving at the time of
the reference to the Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal.
80. As per Rule 8A of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary
Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955, the Government may, by order in writing,
withdraw any case referred to a Tribunal under the aforesaid Rules and pending
before that Tribunal and transfer such cases to another Tribunal for enquiry and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:55 pm )
the Tribunal to which the case is so transferred may, subject to special directions
in the order to transfer, proceed either denovo or from the stage at which the
case was so transferred.
81. As per Rule 8B of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary
Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955, the Government may, by an order in writing,
withdraw at any stage any case referred to a Tribunal under these rules and
pending before that Tribunal. After such withdrawal, the Government shall
pursue further action in respect of State Service Officers and shall entrust the
cases of Subordinate Service Officers to the Heads of Departments concerned
for further action. The Government, or the Head of Department, as the case
may be, may proceed with further action either denovo or from the stage at
which the case was so withdrawn from the Tribunal, and pass final orders.
82. Rule 8A & 8B of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings
Tribunal) Rules, 1955 are reproduced below for the sake of clarity:-
Extract from Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings
Tribunal) Rules, 1955
Rule 8A Rule 8B
The Government may, by order in Government may, by an order in
writing, withdraw any case referred writing, withdraw at any stage any
to a Tribunal under these rules and case referred to a Tribunal under
pending before that Tribunal and these rules and pending before that
transfer such cases to another Tribunal. After such withdrawal the
Tribunal for enquiry and the Tribunal Government shall pursue further
to which the case is so transferred action in respect of State Service
may, subject to special directions in Officers and shall entrust the cases of
the order to transfer, proceed either Subordinate Service Officers to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:55 pm )
Extract from Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings
Tribunal) Rules, 1955
denovo or from the stage at which the Heads of Departments concerned for
case was so transferred. further action. The Government, or
the Head of Department, as the case
may be, may proceed with further
action either denovo or from the stage
at which the case was so withdrawn
from the Tribunal, and pass final
orders.
83. Thus, even if a reference was made to the Tribunal, the Government
can at any time withdraw the reference made to the Tribunal at any stage of the
case and after such withdrawal, the Government shall pursue further action in
respect of State Service Officers and shall entrust the cases of Subordinate
Service Officers to the Heads of Departments concerned for further action. The
Government, or the Head of Department, as the case may be, may therefore
proceed with further action either de novo or from the stage at which the case
was so withdrawn from the Tribunal, and pass final orders.
84. Though both the Appellant/Respondent and the Respondent/Writ
Petitioner are governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services
(Disciplinary Proceeding Tribunal) Rules, 1955, it is not mandatory for the
Government to refer the case to the Discipinary Proceedings Tribunal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:55 pm )
85. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.Subramanyan
Rajadevan's case (cited supra) has not considered Rule 8B of the Tamil Nadu
Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955, which was
inserted later vide G.O.(Ms) No.188, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (N)
Department dated 08.06.1995. Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
D.Subramanyan Rajadevan's case (cited supra) had no occassion to consider
these Rules.
86. A reading of the aforesaid Rules indicates that there is certain amount
of flexibility as to the cases whether a reference has to be made by the
Government to the Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal and even if reference is
made as to whether the case should still be continued by the Tribunal.
87. Though Rule 8A of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary
Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955 was there when the aforesaid decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.Subramanyan Rajadevan's case (cited supra)
was rendered on 09.07.1996, Rule 8B which was thus inserted to the aforesaid
Rules vide G.O.(Ms) No.188, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (N)
Department dated 08.06.1995 was not considered by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:55 pm )
88. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary to Government of Tamil
Nadu Vs. D.Subramanyan Rajadevan, AIR 1996 SC 2634, has referred to
only Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings
Tribunal) Rules, 1955 eventhough, the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary
Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955, had been amended when it rendered its
decsion on 09.07.1996.
89. Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings
Tribunal) Rules, 1955 refers to the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules, 1955 and not to Madras Civil Services (Classification, Control
and Appeal) Rules, 1953.
90. If Rule 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary
Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955 is read harmoniously with Rule 8A and Rule
8B of the aforesaid Rules which inserted in the year 1995 vide G.O.(Ms)
No.188, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (N) Department dated
08.06.1995, it is clear that even if a reference was made to the Disciplinary
Proceedings Tribunal by the Government under Rule 4(1), the Government can
at any stage withdraw the case referred to the Tribunal and entrust the case to
the Head of the Department concerned for further action. Thereafter, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:55 pm )
proceedings can either start from the stage at which the case was withdrawn
from the Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal or afresh de novo.
91. Thus, it is not mandatory for the Government to refer every case of
corruption to the Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal. Further, reference to the
Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal will necessarily entail longer period of
retention of a deliquent in serivce. Therefore, to obviate such an eventality,
disciplinary procedings can be initiated by the Head of the Department and
completed in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 without reference to the Disciplinary
Proceedings Tribunal, if the corruption case has no other implication on
members of the service.
92. This is also evident from a reading of Rule 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu
Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955, as per which,
the Government shall have regard to the nature and gravity of the charge, the
grade or rank of the Officer charged and the organisational strength of the
Department concerned in handling case involving interpretation of rules
regulating conditions of Service of Government Servants. A similar flexibility is
noticed under Rule 5(1) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:55 pm )
Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955.
93. Therefore, the Charge Memo dated 19.08.2021 issued to the
Respondent/Writ Petitioner did not merit an interference in the hands of the Writ
Court as a reference to Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal under Rule 4(1) of the
Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955 is
only discretionary in view of Rule 8A & 8B of the aforesaid Rules.
94. We are therefore unable to agree with either the submisions of the
learned Counsel for the Respondent/Writ petitioner or with the views expressed
by the Writ Court in the Impugned Order dated 09.12.2021 while quashing the
Charge Memo dated 19.08.2021 issued to the Respondent/Writ Petitioner.
Therefore, the Impugned Order of the Writ Court impugned before us warrants
an intereference.
95. We therefore set aside the Impugned Order dated 09.12.2021 passed
by the Writ Court in W.P.No.24071 of 2021. Therefore, the Writ Petition is
liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. In the result, this Writ
Appeal stands allowed with the above observations. No costs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:55 pm )
[S.S.S.R., J.] [C.S.N., J.]
16.04.2025
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
arb
To:
1.The District Collector,
Collectorate,
Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.
2.The Assistant Project Officer,
(Accounts & Administration),
District Project Management Unit,
Tamil Nadu State Rural
Livelihood Mission,
Tiruppur District.
S.S.SUNDAR, J.
and
C.SARAVANAN, J.
arb
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:55 pm )
Pre-Delivery Judgment in W.A.No.719 of 2022
16.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:55 pm )
