Madras High Court
The Principal Secretary To Government vs Pon Nandagopal on 3 March, 2025
Author: S.Srimathy
Bench: J. Nisha Banu, S.Srimathy
W.A.(MD)No.26 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 03.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.A(MD)No.26 of 2025
and
C.M.P(MD).No.201 of 2025
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments
Department,
Fort St. George, Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Department,
Gandhi Adigal Salai, Nungampakkam,
Chennai – 34. ... Appellants
Vs.
Pon Nandagopal ... Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent against the order
of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.2254 of 2019, dated 14.11.2022.
For Appellants :Mr.J.Ashok
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent :Mr.R.Murali
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 05:14:13 pm )
W.A.(MD)No.26 of 2025
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.SRIMATHY, J.)
This Writ Appeal is filed by the respondents in the writ petition
challenging the order dated 14.11.2022 passed in Writ Petition W.P.(MD)No.
2254 of 2019.
2. The Writ Petition was filed for Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to
quash the G.O.No.(Pa).No.124, dated 05.12.2018 issued by the 2 nd respondent
as illegal and consequentially, to direct the respondents to sanction the
Pensionary benefits.
3. The writ petitioner was working as Grade I Executive Officer in
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, from 1979 onwards.
In the year 2010, while he was working as Assistant Commissioner at
Thiruvarur, a charge memo dated 03.08.2011 was issued alleging the writ
petitioner failed to take action against the encroachers, thereby lack of
supervision on the part of the writ petitioner. Enquiry was conducted wherein
the enquiry officer had held charges are “not proved”. However, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 05:14:13 pm )
government disagreed with the findings and issued notice to the writ petitioner.
The writ petitioner had submitted an explanation for the said notice and
requested to drop the proceedings. After considering the same the appointing
authority had issued order of punishment to cut Rs.3,000/- per month for a
period of 7 years from the pension. The same was challenged in the writ
petition. The Writ Court has considered and has held the charge itself is not
maintainable, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was aware
that the property in question was an endowed property and the writ petitioner
had willfully turned a blind eye to the acts of encroachment. Further, the Writ
Court had held mere installation of stones on the endowed land could not have
attracted the petitioner's attention, hence the charge itself is frivolous. Based on
the reasoning the punishment order was quashed. Aggrieved over the same, the
State had preferred this writ appeal.
4. The charge against the writ petitioner is that the petitioner failed to
take action against the encroachment. The contention of the petitioner is that he
was not aware the property is a kattalai property and there is an encroachment
in the property. But the contention of the writ appellants is that the writ
petitioner cannot state that he is not aware of kattalai lands. Further, it is not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 05:14:13 pm )
simple installation of stone but the lands are divided by erecting stone for the
purpose of dividing the lands into housing plots, since the writ petitioner was
having his office in the same town cannot turn the blind eye to the
encroachment and to the attempts made to divide the lands into housing plots,
resulting in revenue loss.
5. After hearing the rival submission, this Court is of the considered
opinion that for taking disciplinary proceedings there ought to be acts of
negligence with ill motive and deliberate willful intention to cause loss to the
employer. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs J.
Ahmed reported in (1979) 2 Supreme Court Cases 286 has held misconduct
means misconduct arising from ill motive and acts of negligence. Mere error of
judgments or innocent mistake do not constitute such misconduct. Moreover, a
single act of omission or error would not constitute misconduct. In the present
case there is no such ingredients to initiate disciplinary proceeding. Especially
there is no deliberate intension to create loss. Even if it is considered as
misconduct, it is only single incident and at least under this ground the writ
petition is entitled to relief. Further the allegation against the petitioner is that
he failed to exercise the supervisory power against the trustees and the kattalai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 05:14:13 pm )
properties. Under such circumstances, the charge is too frivolous and the Writ
Court has rightly held so. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion this
ground has no legally sanctity.
6. The next ground of the appellants is that the punishment was
imposed after obtaining the opinion from the Tamil Nadu Public Service
Commission. The said ground cannot be entertained, since the TNPSC has only
opined. Any opinion cannot be a ground to impose punishment. Further when
the basis of the disciplinary action was held to be frivolous, the ground that the
appellants have the concurrence of the TNPSC has no value at all.
7. The next contention raised by the appellant is that if the
punishment is disproportionate, then the Writ Court ought to have remitted
back the case to the appellant. This Court of the considered opinion, if the writ
petitioner was in service, then remitting the case back to the appellants may be
appropriate. But in the present case writ petitioner has already obtain
superannuation and retired from service, hence there is no fruitful purpose.
More so when the charges are held to be frivolous. Hence, this ground also
cannot be entertained.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 05:14:13 pm )
8. The next ground is that recovery was made for a considerable
period of time, hence ordering to refund the amount already deducted is illegal.
The said ground cannot be entertained. When this Court has held the charge as
frivolous and the punishment as disproportionate, then the appellants cannot be
permitted to deduct the amount. Hence already deducted amount ought to be
refunded. Infact the Writ Court has declined to impose interest for the refund
and the same itself is relief to the appellants.
9. Therefore, the appellants have not raised any legally sustainable
ground. Hence, for the reasons stated above, the writ appeal is dismissed,
confirming the order of the Writ Court. No costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[J.N.B., J.] [S.S.Y., J.]
03.03.2025
Index : Yes / No
Tmg
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 05:14:13 pm )
To:
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments
Department,
Fort St.George, Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Department,
Gandhi Adigal Salai,
Nungampakkam,
Chennai – 600 034.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 05:14:13 pm )
J.NISHA BANU, J.
and
S.SRIMATHY, J.
Tmg
03.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 05:14:13 pm )
