Madras High Court
The Secretary To Government vs D.Balasundaram on 12 November, 2025
Author: R. Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
W.A No. 3226 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.11.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
W.A No.3226 of 2025
and
C.M.P.No.26366 of 2025
1. The Secretary to Government
Commercial Taxes and Registration (K) Department
Government of Tamil Nadu
Fort St.George
Chennai-600 009.
2. The Inspector General of Registration
No.100, Santhome High Raod
Santhome, Chennai-600 028.
..Appellants
Vs
1. D.Balasundaram
S/o.K.Devadass
2. B.Prabhu
S/o.Balasundaram
3. B.Dinesh
S/o.Balasundaram ..Respondents
Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent to set aside the
order dated 27.09.2024 made in W.P.No.23124 of 2012 and allow the above
writ appeal.
Page Nos.1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 12:29:04 pm )
W.A No. 3226 of 2025
For Appellants : Mr.U.Baranidharan
Special Government Pleader
for State Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
(Made by HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.)
The challenge in this intra-Court appeal is to the order dated 27.09.2024
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 23124 of 2012. By the said
order, the learned Single Judge set aside the punishment of compulsory
retirement imposed on the deceased employee and substituted it with the
punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of three years without
cumulative effect, and further directed the passing of all consequential orders.
2. During her lifetime, Tmt. S. Vijayalakshmi, wife of the first
respondent and mother of respondents 2 and 3, who was employed as a
Superintendent in the cadre of Sub-Registrar in the office of the District
Registrar, Salem (West), was issued a charge memo containing seven charges.
The Enquiry Officer, after conducting a detailed enquiry, submitted a report
holding that all the charges against the deceased delinquent were proved.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 12:29:04 pm )
Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of compulsory
retirement from service.
3. The said order of punishment was challenged before this Court in the
aforesaid writ petition. After hearing both parties, the learned Single Judge
passed the impugned order, which is the subject matter of the present appeal.
4. We have heard Mr. U. Baranidharan, learned Special Government
Pleader appearing for the appellants.
5. Charges 1 to 6 pertained to incorrect entries made with respect to
various marriages registered by the deceased employee, while Charge No. 7
related to non-adherence to the statutory requirement of giving 30 days’ notice
before registering a marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
6. The learned Single Judge observed that Charges 1 to 6 did not relate to
any deliberate acts of misconduct but to a failure to verify the entries made
during the course of marriage registrations. On the face of it, the said charges
were not of a serious nature, and no mala fide intention was attributed to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 12:29:04 pm )
deceased employee in respect of the irregularities alleged.
7. Therefore, when the charges were trivial in nature, the initiation of
disciplinary proceedings under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 was held to be disproportionate. The
learned Single Judge accordingly held that the punishment of compulsory
retirement was shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the charges and, in
exercise of writ jurisdiction, modified the punishment as stated above.
8. We find that the order of the learned Single Judge suffers from no
illegality or infirmity warranting interference.
9. The contention of Mr. U. Baranidharan, learned Special Government
Pleader for the State, that when the punishment is found disproportionate, the
learned Single Judge ought to have remanded the matter to the Disciplinary
Authority for reconsideration, is not acceptable.
10. Ordinarily, when a punishment is found disproportionate to the
gravity of the misconduct, the matter is remanded to the Disciplinary Authority
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 12:29:04 pm )
to impose an appropriate punishment. However, in the present case, having
regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances, and considering that the charges
against the deceased delinquent were trivial and that she is no more, remanding
the matter to the Disciplinary Authority would cause monetary hardship and
undue delay to her legal heirs, who are otherwise entitled to the benefits
flowing from the order of the learned Single Judge. Such a remand, in our
considered view, would result in miscarriage of justice.
11. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the impugned order
passed by the learned Single Judge is just and proper and does not warrant any
interference by this Court.
12. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. Consequently, the
connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(R.S.K.,J) (H.C., J)
12.11.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
mk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 12:29:04 pm )
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
and
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.,
mk
12.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 12:29:04 pm )
