Madras High Court
The Principal Secretary To Government vs L.Subramanian on 21 February, 2025
Author: S.Srimathy
Bench: J. Nisha Banu, S.Srimathy
W.A.(MD)No.337 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 21.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.A(MD)No.337 of 2025
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.2636 of 2025
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Commercial Taxes and Registration (A1)
Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Principal Secretary / Commissioner
of Commercial Taxes,
Office of the Commissioner of Commercial
Taxes,
Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
3.The Deputy Commissioner (State Tax),
Office of the Deputy Commissioner (ST),
Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District. ... Appellants
Vs.
L.Subramanian ... Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent against the orders
of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.4706 of 2020, dated 15.06.2022.
For Appellants : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.S.Louis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 12:04:21 pm )
1/6
W.A.(MD)No.337 of 2025
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.SRIMATHY, J.)
The present writ appeal is filed against the order, dated 15.06.2022,
passed in W.P.(MD)No.4706 of 2020.
2.The writ petition was filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to
quash the impugned order, dated 04.02.2020. It is alleged that the writ petitioner
has demanded bribe from one Balasubramaninan and on that basis charges were
levelled against the writ petitioner through the said impugned charge memo
imputing two charges that the writ petitioner had claimed illegal gratification. The
said charge memo was challenged by the writ petitioner alleging for the same set
of facts and same cause of action, the respondents have already issued a charge
memo, dated 21.07.2016 and based on the said charge memo, enquiry was
conducted, the enquiry officer has held the charges are proved and the disciplinary
authority has awarded the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of
one year with cumulative effect through an order, dated 26.09.2019. Hence, the
present charge memo for the same set of facts and allegations cannot be sustained,
when the writ petitioner was already subjected to disciplinary action for the same
set of facts and was awarded punishment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 12:04:21 pm )
3. The appellants have taken a stand that the present charge memo is
different from the earlier one. The present charges are serious in nature, the
Vigilance had recommended to initiate disciplinary action, hence the writ
petitioner requires to be enquired for the charge of illegal gratification.
4. The Writ Court has compared and elaborately considered the said two
charge memos and has held on comparison of both the charge memos, the charges
are one and same, except for some insignificant additions in both the charge
memos. The Writ Court has relied on various judgments and has come to the
conclusion that law does not permit the employers to conduct disciplinary
proceedings in instalment basis for the same set of facts. Further held the cause of
action that existed even when the 1st disciplinary proceedings were initiated. On
these reasons the writ petition was allowed. Aggrieved over the same, the present
writ appeal is preferred by the appellants herein / respondents thereunder.
5.The appellants contended that the allegation against the writ petitioner
is serious in nature. Further, it is initiated based on the recommendation from the
Vigilance for simultaneous disciplinary action. The said contention of the
appellants cannot be accepted, since for the same cause of action, disciplinary
proceedings was initiated already and the same ended in imposing punishment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 12:04:21 pm )
Further the writ petitioner has already undergone punishment. Therefore, for the
same set of facts and same cause of action, another disciplinary proceeding cannot
be initiated. The recommendation by the appropriate authority can be at the most
an opinion or a recommendation. The Government ought to have taken the
decision. The writ petitioner has already under gone punishment for the same set
of facts and the same cannot be erased. Once the punishment was undergone and
if the writ petitioner is punished again for the same set of facts, definitely it would
amount to double jeopardy. As rightly held by the Writ Court, the appellants /
respondents cannot initiate disciplinary proceedings in instalments and there is no
infirmity in the order. Therefore, this is Court is not inclined to interfere in the
order passed by the Writ Court.
6. With the above said observations, the writ appeal is dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[J.N.B., J.] [S.S.Y., J.]
21.02.2025
Index : Yes / No
Tmg
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 12:04:21 pm )
To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Commercial Taxes and Registration (A1)
Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Principal Secretary / Commissioner
of Commercial Taxes,
Office of the Commissioner of Commercial
Taxes,
Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
3.The Deputy Commissioner (State Tax),
Office of the Deputy Commissioner (ST),
Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 12:04:21 pm )
J.NISHA BANU, J.
and
S.SRIMATHY, J.
Tmg
21.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 12:04:21 pm )
