Madras High Court

The Secretary To Government vs R.Ganapathy Murugan on 27 February, 2025

Author: G.Jayachandran

Bench: G.Jayachandran

    2025:MHC:601




                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                  DATED : 27.02.2025

                                                          CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
                                                     AND
                                      THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE R.POORNIMA

                                             W.A(MD)No.891 of 2021
                                                     and
                                            C.M.P(MD)No.4035 of 2021


                 1.The Secretary to Government,
                   Tourism, Culture and Hindu Religious and Charitable
                   Endowment Department,
                   Government of Tamil Nadu,
                   Fort St.George,
                   Chennai – 600 009.

                 2.The Commissioner,
                   Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment
                   Department,Chennai- 600 034.          ... Appellants/Respondents


                                                               .Vs.


                 R.Ganapathy Murugan                                   ... Respondent/Writ Petititoner

                 PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act praying this
                 Court to set aside the judgment of this Court made in W.P(MD)No.3585 of


                 1/11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis             ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 11:10:22 am )
                 2018, dated 22.10.2019.

                                  For Appellants                : Mr.D.Gandhiraj
                                                                  Spl.Govt. Pleader

                                  For Respondent                : Mr.S.Ramsundarvijayaraj


                                                         JUDGMENT

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.

AND R.POORNIMA,J.

The writ appeal is directed against the judgment of this Court made in

W.P(MD)No.3585 of 2018, dated 22.10.2019.

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the

materials placed before this Court.

3.This is a case of denial of promotion as Assistant Commissioner in view

of pendency of departmental proceedings under Section 17(b) of Tamil Nadu

Civil Services(Discipline and Appeal) Rules.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 11:10:22 am )

4.The facts involved in the appeal is as under:

Ganapathy Murugan, the respondent herein, while discharging his duty as

Executive Officer of Arulmighu Kasi Viswanatha Swamy Temple, Tenkasi was

subject to disciplinary proceedings under Rule 17(b) of the above Rules for

appointing one Mariappan as Maniam on consolidated pay of Rs.1,800/- per

month to Palayanjalal Kumarasamy Thirukkoil, Sinthupoonthurai which he was

holding additional charge as Executive Officer. This appointment been made

without prior approval of the Commissioner of HR and CE Department and

therefore, he was asked to show-cause as to why action for misconduct should

not be taken. Apart from this charge, there are two more charges against him.

Ultimately, it was only this charge was found to be proved and Ganapathy

Murugan was imposed with penalty of stoppage of increment for a period of

three months without cumulative effect by proceedings, dated 26.05.2017.This

proceedings is the subject-matter of W.P(MD)No.3585 of 2018 instituted by

Ganapathy Murugan, to quash the proceedings and consequently to consider the

Petitioner for the post of Assistant Commissioner, HR and CE Department on par

with his junior with all monetary and attendant benefits.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 11:10:22 am )

5.The learned Single Judge, considering the averments made in the Writ

Petition, held that the appointment of Mariyappan as Maniam was pursuant to

the resolution passed by the Trustees and therefore, the Writ petitioner namely ,

Ganapathy Murugan cannot be penalized for not getting prior approval of the

Commissioner. In support of the said submission, section 55 of the HR and CE

Act been relied. The learned Single Judge held that he finding of the Enquiry

Officer holding the charge against the delinquent proved and the punishment

imposed are liable to be set aside. Being aggrieved, the HR and CE Department

through its Secretary and Commissioner, filed the present Writ Appeal on the

ground that the learned Single judge failed to take note of the fact that out the

three charges framed against the Writ Petitioner, two charges were not found

proved and one charge alone found proved and that charge is in respect of

appointing Mariyappan as Maniam on consolidated pay without the prior

permission of the Commissioner of HR and CE Department. Though the

delinquent has relied upon the resolution of the Trustees for appointing

Mariyappan as Maniam under section 55 of the HR and CE Act, the learned

Single Judge had failed to take note of the fact that the Trustees had passed a

resolution only on 29.5.2013 whereas, the delinquent has appointed Mariyappan

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 11:10:22 am ) as Maniam even prior to that from 1.5.2013. There cannot be any resolution for

appointment ratifying the illegal appointment without proper permission from

the authority. Rule 5A of the Tamil Nadu Religious Institutions(Officers and

Servants)Service Rules, 1964 which came into effect from 26.8.2010. The said

rule was later quashed by the Division Bench of this Court fide order, dated

22.01.2015 in W.A(MD)N0.491 of 2013. Therefore the Writ Petitioner taking

advantage of this order in W.A.No.491 of 2013 which deals with the power of

the Executive Officer, since the issue is to exercise the power by Ganapathy

Murugan as Executive Officer of a particular temple and the order appointing

Mariyappan as Maniam on consolidated pay without prior permission of the

Commissioner of HR and CE Department. Admittedly, the said Mariyappan was

working in the temple in the Ticket Counter and he had been posted as Maniam

without prior permission of the Commissioner of HR and CE Department. While

Rule 14 mandates that schedule of the establishment cannot be altered even by

the Trustees without prior permission of the Joint Commissioner/Assistant

Commissioner. The act of appointing Mariyappan as Maniam per se illegal

contrary to the established rule and hence, the order of the learned Single Judge

to be set aside and the punishment imposed on the Writ Petitioner has to be

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 11:10:22 am ) upheld.

6.The learned counsel for the respondent/Writ Petitioner submitted that the

it is a case of victimization to deny the promotion of the writ Petitioner as

Assistant Commissioner. Citing the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings

initiated in the year 2015, the Petitioner’s name was not included in the panel

drawn for the year 2016-2017. After imposition of penalty and stoppage of

increment for three months without cumulative effect and the same was

challenged by the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.3585 of 2018 and the same came to

be allowed in favour of Writ Petitioner on 22.10.2019. Even thereafter, he was

not considered for promotion citing the pendency of the present writ Petition.

Meanwhile his junior were promoted and again to prevent him from being

considered for promotion, a charge-memo was issued and punishment of censure

was imposed on him vide proceedings, dated 3.12.2020. His name was not

included in the panel drawn for the year 2020-21.The said punishment of censure

by the third respondent, dated 28.09.2023 had been quashed by this Court on

7.12.2023 in W.P(MD)No.24695 of 2023. Even if the punishment of stoppage of

increment for three months without cumulative effect imposed on the Writ

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 11:10:22 am ) Petitioner on 6.5.2017 is sustainable, the promotion of the Writ Petitioner cannot

be deprived after the currency of punishment. Therefore, he would submit that

the Writ Appeal filed with mala-fide against the promotional aspect of the Writ

Petitioner and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed.

7.The point for consideration in this Writ Appeal is as to whether the

appointment on consolidated pay of Rs.1800/- to one Mariyappan for discharging

his duty as Maniam from 1.5.2013 is contrary to the Rules?

8.In this regard, the Writ Petitioner rely upon the resolution passed by the

Trustee and Section 55 of the Act. No doubt, under Section 55 of the HR and CE

Act, office holders and servants in religious institutions whenever vacancy arise

can be filled up by the Trustees. However such appointment should always be

subject to the rules and service conditions as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu

Hindu Religious Institutions (Officers and Servants)Service Rules, 1964. The

appellants before permitting Mariyappan to hold the post of Maniam on

consolidated pay of Rs.1,800/- ought to have followed the Rules and Law

prevailing. Rule 14 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Institutions(Officers and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 11:10:22 am ) Servants)Service Rules, 1964 reads as below:

‘’14.Pay and Emoluments of Officers and Servants:--The pay and emoluments in cash and in kind, of each officer or servant shall be in accordance with a schedule of establishment framed by the trustee or trustees and approved by the Assistant Commissioner in the case of institutions under the jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner and by the Joint/Deputy Commissioner in the case of other institutions. The trustee or trustees shall not alter the schedule without the previous permission of the Assistant Commissioner or the Joint/Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be .

Provided that this rule shall not apply to maths and specific endowments attached to maths.’’

9.There would be no post ratification of any appointment made without

prior approval and permission of the Commissioner. In this regard, punishment

was imposed since he appointed Maniam on 1.5.2013, whereas, the Trustees

passed resolution in their Board Meeting to appoint Mariyappan on consolidated

pay of Rs.1800/- only on 29.5.2013 and that appointment was made even

without prior permission of the Commissioner. Therefore the apparent illegality

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 11:10:22 am ) warrants disciplinary proceedings, since it is a grave misconduct. The appellants

before taking action, have caused a show-cause notice to the Writ Petitioner

providing him an opportunity to explain. Only after considering his explanation,

order of punishment passed vide proceedings, dated 26.5.2017. The learned

Single Judge, with great respect, had relied upon G.O.No.255, dated 28.6.2010

and had allowed the Writ Petition while factually the said G.O is not applicable to

the case in hand..

10.Therefore the Writ Appeal is liable to be allowed and accordingly

allowed. The order passed by the learned Single Judge W.P(MD)No.3585 of

2018, dated 22.10.2019 is set aside and the order of punishment imposed on the

Writ Petitioner vide proceedings dated 26.5.2017 is upheld. This Court leaves the

issue of considering the respondent/Writ Petitioner for promotion based n his

seniority, which shall be subject to this order which has confirmed the