[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
R.Mathanagopal vs The Commissioner Of Municipal ... on 1 December, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
2025:MHC:2734
W.A.No.1442 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 27.10.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 01.12.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL
W.A.No.1442 of 2021
and CMP.No.8969 of 2021
R.Mathanagopal
Sanitary Inspector,
Dharmapuri Municipality,
Dharmapuri ... Appellant
Vs.
The Commissioner of Municipal Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai-600 005
...Respondent
PRAYER: Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to
Page 1 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 03:23:06 pm )
W.A.No.1442 of 2021
set aside the order dated 18.12.2020 made in W.P.No.2857 of 2011.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Ranganathan for
Mr.S.N.Ravichandran
For Respondent : Mr.P.Anandakumar
JUDGMENT
M.S.RAMESH.J,
This Writ Appeal has been filed to set aside the order dated
18.12.2020 made in W.P.No.2857 of 2011.
2. When the appellant herein was working as a Sanitary Inspector in
Udagamandalam, a charge memo dated 04.08.2005 was framed under Rule
9(2) of the Tamil Nadu Municipal Public Health Service (Discipline and
Appeal) Regulations, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations').
While the first charge against him was that he had obtained and produced a
bogus certificate for B.Sc Chemistry degree and cheated the Government,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 03:23:06 pm )
which is a criminal offence, the second charge was that he had undergone
Food Inspectors' training conducted by the Director of Public Health, by
producing a bogus certificate and acted as a Food Inspector by lifting food
samples, which is highly irregular.
3. Not being satisfied with the explanation dated 22.08.2005 for the
purpose, domestic enquiry was conducted against him. During the course of
the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer had held both the charges as 'not proved'.
However, the Disciplinary Authority, through his proceedings dated
28.08.2009, had deviated from the findings of the Enquiry Officer,
predominantly, on a preponderance of probabilities that he had not preferred
a police complaint with regard to the bogus degree certificate issued by a
Private Study Centre and also that he had not made any attempt to prove that
the degree certificate was bona fide. The Disciplinary Authority had also
disagreed with the appellant that the degree certificate was not required for
any promotion or higher pay.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 03:23:06 pm )
4. The further explanation dated 11.01.2010 to the deviation
proceedings was rejected, and after finding that both the charges against him
were proved, the Authority had imposed punishment of compulsory
retirement as a measure of penalty, with a rider that his pension and gratuity
may be allowed at a rate not less than 2/3rd and not more than full
compensation pension admissible to him on the date of his compulsory
retirement. When this punishment was put to challenge before this Court in
W.P.No.2857 of 2011, the learned Single Judge, without addressing the
grounds raised in the Writ Petition, had rejected the same with liberty to the
appellant to file a statutory appeal before the Competent Authority. This
order passed in the Writ Petition dated 18.12.2020 is assailed in the present
Writ Appeal.
5.1 Mr.T.Ranganathan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submitted that the proceedings of the Disciplinary Authority, after deviating
from the Enquiry Officer's findings, is violative of the principles of natural
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 03:23:06 pm )
justice. According to him, Rule 9(3) of the Regulations provides for issuance
of a show cause notice, after the Competent Authority arrives at a
provisional conclusion in regard to the penalty to be imposed, together with
a copy of the report of the Enquiring Authority and extending an opportunity
to render the delinquent's explanation, which show cause notice has not been
issued.
5.2 It is the submission of the learned counsel that since the
punishment order is in gross violation of the procedure contemplated for
imposing a major penalty, the appellant would be entitled to challenge the
punishment order by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, even
though an alternate statutory appeal remedy was available.
6. Per contra, Mr.P.Ananda Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
sole respondent submitted that when the Regulations provide for an appeal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 03:23:06 pm )
remedy, the Writ Petition, challenging the punishment order cannot be
maintained, without availing the statutory remedy. As an alternate
submission, the Disciplinary Authority had rightly found that since the B.Sc
Degree Certificate was found to be bogus, the Food Inspector training
undergone by him, on the strength of the bogus certificate, is highly
irregular. Therefore, the punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed,
which commemorates with the gravity of the charges.
7. We have given our careful considerations to the submissions made.
8. The appellant herein was originally appointed as a Health Assistant
in the year 1973. Later on, the nomenclature of the post of Health Assistant
was changed as Sanitary Inspector. The educational qualifications required
for the post of Health Assistant / Sanitary Inspector is that one should
possess a minimum education qualification of SSLC and also a Sanitary
Inspector Certificate granted by the Additional Director of Health Services
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 03:23:06 pm )
and Family Planning or its equivalent. A degree in B.Sc Chemistry is not a
mandatory qualification either for appointment to the post of Sanitary
Inspector or for further promotion, which aspect is not under dispute.
However, for the purpose of undergoing training on lifting of food samples,
the Sanitary Inspectors, who possess B.Sc Chemistry degree, are given
preference.
9. During the course of the original enquiry, the Enquiry Officer had
held that B.Sc Degree Certificate produced by the appellant as bogus had not
been proved beyond doubt, and therefore held both the charges against him
as 'not proved'.
10. In Paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent
before the Writ Court, it is stated that during the discrete enquiry, it was
found beyond any shadow of doubt that the B.Sc Degree Certificate
produced by the appellant was a bogus certificate. This was in consequence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 03:23:06 pm )
of such discrete enquiry that the Disciplinary Authority deviated from the
findings of the Enquiry Officer and had come to the conclusion that the
certificate was bogus.
11. However, the order of punishment does not reveal as to how such
a conclusion was arrived. When the Disciplinary Authority had decided to
deviate from the Enquiry Officer's findings that the certificate produced by
the appellant was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, to be genuine, there
was a duty cast upon him to render his findings with regard to the conclusion
arrived by him that the certificate was bogus.
12. When it is the case of the respondent that the Degree Certificate
was found to be bogus in the discrete enquiry, the Enquiry Report ought to
have been furnished to the appellant, thereby extending an opportunity to
him to submit his explanation. Non furnishing of the same would amount to
a violation of the principles of natural justice.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 03:23:06 pm )
13. This apart, no other valid reasons have been assigned in the
punishment order except stating that the charges are held to be proved based
on a perusal of the relevant documents. In the absence of any material before
the Disciplinary Authority to establish that the certificate was bogus, the
very basis of the charge that he has produced a bogus certificate, has not
been established.
14. The learned Single Judge had rejected the Writ Petition, only on
the ground that the appellant had not availed the statutory appeal remedy.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Whirlpool Corporation vs.
Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others, reported in [(1998) 8 SCC
1], while dealing with the scope of entertaining a Writ Petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, after referring to the judgments rendered by
the Constitution Bench, had held that the alternate remedy shall not operate
as a bar, in at least three contingencies namely:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 03:23:06 pm )
(i) Where the Writ Petition has been filed for the
enforcement of any fundamental right; or
(ii) Where there has been a violation of the principles of
natural justice; or
(iii) Where the proceedings are wholly without
jurisdiction.
15. As set forth in the earlier portion of our order, the order impugned
in the Writ Petition was not only a non speaking order, but also in gross
violation of the principles of natural justice, since the Disciplinary Authority
had come to a conclusion that the appellant's Degree Certificate was bogus,
based on a discrete enquiry, which report was not furnished to him.
16. In such circumstances, when there is violation of the principles of
natural justice, the appellant would be entitled to invoke Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, without availing the alternate remedy as held in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 03:23:06 pm )
Whirlpool's case (supra) .
17. The learned counsel for the appellant also claimed that the
Authorities had deviated from Regulation 9(3) by failing to issue a show
cause notice for the proposed punishment. The respondent, in their counter
affidavit, have claimed that there has been an amendment to the said
Regulation, which dispenses with such notice. But, the amended regulation
has not been produced before us. However, we do not intend to go into this
aspect, since the entire proceedings are flawed, which issue has already been
discussed by us in detail above.
18. In the result, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that
the order dated 24.12.2010, imposing penalty of compulsory retirement, is in
gross violation of the principles of natural justice and hence cannot be
legally sustained. So also, the order passed in the Writ Petition requires
interference, in view of the exception made out for an employee to invoke
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 03:23:06 pm )
Article 226 without availing the alternate remedy, in circumstances when
there is a violation of the principles of natural justice.
19. Accordingly, the proceeding of the respondent in
Na.Ka.No.4904/2004/J4 dated 24.12.2010 is quashed. Consequently, the
respondent herein shall pass necessary orders, treating the appellant as
having continued in service till his date of superannuation, and extend to
him all consequential service and monetary benefits, including pensionary
benefits. Such order shall be passed, within a period of four (4) weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
20. Thus, this Writ Appeal stands allowed. No Costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[M.S.R., J] [R.S.V.,J]
01. 12.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 03:23:06 pm )
(1/ 2)
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Anu
To
The Commissioner of Municipal Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai-600 005
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
Anu
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 03:23:06 pm )
Pre-delivery order made in
01.12 .2025
(½)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 03:23:06 pm )
