Madras High Court
S.Karunakaran vs The Secretary To The Government on 25 November, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
W.P.No.15872 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 18.11.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 25.11.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.No.15872 of 2023
and W.M.P.No.15344 of 2023
S.Karunakaran ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Secretary to the Government,
Public (Special-A) Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary/
Commissioner of Revenue Administration,
Commissionerate of Revenue Administration
and Disaster Management,
Ezhilagam, Chennai – 600 005. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records from the
second respondent in connection with the charge memo purportedly
dated 22.09.2022, served on petitioner on 05.05.2023 bearing
Ref.No.Pani 2(2)/35140/2021 issued and quash the same.
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 08:08:11 pm )
W.P.No.15872 of 2023
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Prakash, Senior Counsel
For Mr.K.Krishnamoorthy
For Respondents : Mr.M.Sureshkumar
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.V.Jeevagiridharan
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the charge
memo dated 22.09.2022 issued by the second respondent herein.
2. The petitioner, while he was working as District Revenue
Officer, was served with charge memo dated 22.09.2022 consisting three
charges as follows:-
@F w; w r;rhl;L 1 ? jpU/v!;/fUzhfud; vd;gtu; fle;j
07/03/2017 Kjy; 07/12/2017 tiu xU';fpiz e;j
ehf g; gl;o d k; khtl;lj;jpy; ehf g; gl;o d k; khtl;l tUtha;
m Yt y u h f g; gzp g[u p e ;jn g h J ehf g; gl;o d k; khtl;lk;.
Kap y h L Ji w tl;lk; kw; W k; kap y h L J i w efu hl;rpf;Fl;gl;l
thu;L 3 gp s h f; vz;/23 efu g[y vz;/883- 2 ru;f;fhu;
g[wk;n g h f; F vd tifg;gLj;jg;gl;l 0/7406 r/kP/ fl;olk; khjh
nfha p y; vd jhf;fyhfp a[ s; s ep yj;jpid u/g[";ir vd tifghL
kh w; w k; bra; J g[dpj rntup a h u; Mya k; lnahrp!; M`g;
j";rht{u; brhirl;o mjd; jw;fhy ek; gfu; jiytu; j";ir Mau; vd
gl;lh kh w; w k; bra; J ehf g; gl;o d k; khtl;l tUtha; m Yt y u;
kw; W k; ep y clik gjpt[ nkk;g h L jpl;l nky;Ki w a P l; L
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 08:08:11 pm )
m Yt y u; bra y;Ki wf s; K:/K/8436- 2017/M4 . eh s ;
05/12/2017 ? d; g o cj;jut[ gp w g; g pj; J s ; s h u ;/ mu R
g[wk;n g h f; F vdj; jhf;fhyhf p a[ s; s ep uj;jpid. v e;jtpj
m o g; gil Mtz';fs; kw; W k; rhu; e piy m Yt y u;f s p d ;
m w p f;iff s; Mfp a vjida[k; gupr P yi d bra;a h k y;
jd;dpr;irah d Kiwa p y;. mrp uj;ijahf ,Ue; J bfhz;L
Kiwa w ; w tifapy; u/g[";ir vd kh w; w k; bra; J gl;lh tH';fp
mu R g ; g z p a p y ; jtwpiHj;J s ; s h u ;/
Fw; wr;rhl;L 2 ? u/g[";ir vd kh w; w k; bra; J gl;lh
tH';FtJ khtl;l tUtha; m Yt y u;f s p d ; mjpfh u tuk;g p w ; F
m g; g h w ; gl;ljhf ,Uf;Fk; epiy a p y ;. mjpfh u tuk;gpid
kPw p gl;lh tH';fp Mizapl;ljd;K:yk;. Mjpfhu
J c &; g p u n a h f k; bra; J s ; s h u ;/
Fw; wr;rhl;L 3 ? jdpa u; ,j;jifa bray; K:yk; xU
bgh W g ; g[ s ; s mu R Ch p a u J m o g; gilf;flik. ek; gfj;jd;ik
kw; W k; flikap y; gw; W z u;t[ Mfp at w; Wl d; bray; glj; jtwp
jkpH; e h L mu R g ; g z p a h s u ; elj;ij tpjpf s; tpjp 20(1)I
k P w p bray; gl;L s; s h u ;/@
3. The crux of the charge is that the petitioner transferred the
patta in favour of a Church in respect of the land comprised in Town
survey No.883/2 to an extent of 0.7406 sq.mt., situated at Block No.23,
Ward No.3, Mayiladurai, Nagapattinam District. Originally, the said land
was classified as Circaar Poramboke and it was transferred in favour of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 08:08:11 pm )
the church on their application.
4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that the said charge memo was issued on him on 05.05.2023 at
the fag end of the petitioner's service, when he was about to retire from
service i.e., on 31.05.2023. After issuance of patta on application, the
town surveyor/Sub Inspector of Survey surveyed the subject land and
submitted a report. They recommended for issuance of patta in favour of
the third party viz., the Church.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and
perused the material placed before this Court.
6. Admittedly, the third party is in possession and enjoyment
of the property for the several decades. As per Section 31(7) of the
Revenue Standing Orders, for transfer of patta in favour of persons who
is in possession of a property for twelve years, when parties who have no
documents of title are shown in a summary inquiry possession for having
been in possession as reputed owners for twelve years or more, transfer
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 08:08:11 pm )
of registry may be made after notice. However, while grating patta, the
following ingredients are to be verified:
(i) whether the party is in possession for more than 12 years
(ii) whether the payment of revenue was made to the government
by way of kist or by way of property tax to the local government which
act as a proof of possession
On verification of those documents, the petitioner passed order to grant
patta in respect of the subject property. It is also to be noted that patta is
not a title to the document and it is issued on the basis of the possession
of the property. Further it is an appealable order and if there are any
grievances over the order, the aggrieved party can file appeal. In fact, in
the case on hand, an appeal was filed and the said order was set aside and
the appeal was allowed.
7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner also
relied upon the judgment reported in (1999) 7 SCC 409 in the case of
Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar Vs. Union of India & ors., in which the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as follows :-
“41. When penalty is not levied, the assessee
certainly benefits. But it cannot be said that by not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 08:08:11 pm )
levying the penalty the officer has favoured the assessee
or shown undue favour to him. There has to be some
basis for the disciplinary authority to reach such a
conclusion even prima facie. Record in the present case
does not show if the disciplinary authority had any
information within its possession from where it could
form an opinion that the appellant showed 'favour' to the
assessee by not imposing the penalty. He may have
wrongly exercised his jurisdiction. But that wrong can be
corrected in appeal. That cannot always form basis for
initiating disciplinary proceedings for an officer while
he is acting as quasi judicial authority. It must be kept in
mind that being a quasi judicial authority, he is always
subject to judicial supervision in appeal.
42. Initiation of disciplinary proceedings against
an officer cannot take place on an information which is
vague or indefinite. Suspicion has no role to play in such
matter. There must exist reasonable basis for the
disciplinary authority to proceed against the delinquent
officer. Merely because penalty was not imposed and the
Board in the exercise of its power directed filing of
appeal against that order in the the Appellate Tribunal
could not be enough to proceed against the appellant.
There is no other instance to show that in similar case
the appellant invariably imposed penalty.
43. If, every error of law were to constitute a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 08:08:11 pm )
charge of misconduct, it would impinge upon the
independent functioning of quasi judicial officers like the
appellant. Since in sum and substance misconduct is
sought to be inferred by the appellant having committed
an error of law, the charge-sheet on the face of it does
not proceed on any legal premise rendering it liable to
be quashed. In other words, to maintain any charge-
sheet against a quasi judicial authority something more
has to be alleged than a mere mistake of law, e.g., in the
nature of some extraneous consideration influencing the
quasi judicial order. Since nothing of the sort is alleged
herein the impugned charge-sheet is rendered illegal.
The charge- sheet, if sustained, will thus impinge upon
the confidence and independent functioning of a quasi
judicial authority. The entire system of administrative
adjudication whereunder quasi judicial powers are
conferred on administrative authorities, would fall into
disrepute if officers performing such functions are
inhibited in performing their functions without fear or
favour because of the constant threat of disciplinary
proceedings.”
Thus it is clear that in order to maintain any charge sheet as against a
quasi-judicial authority, something more has to be alleged than a mere
mistake of law ie., in the nature of some extraneous consideration
influencing the quasi-judicial order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 08:08:11 pm )
8. On perusal of the entire charge memo, no such allegations
are made out as against the petitioner. Therefore, the entire system of
administrative adjudication whereunder quasi-judicial powers are
conferred on administrative authorities, would fall into disrepute if
officers performing such functions are inhibited in performing their
functions without fear or favour because of the constant threat of
disciplinary proceedings.
9. In view of the above discussions, the charge memo dated
22.09.2022, issued by the second respondent in Ref.No.Pani
2(2)/35140/2021, is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to
disburse the terminal benefits, if any, to the petitioner within a period of
eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 08:08:11 pm )
10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
25.11.2025
(2/2)
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
rts
To
1. The Secretary to the Government,
Public (Special-A) Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary/
Commissioner of Revenue Administration,
Commissionerate of Revenue Administration
and Disaster Management,
Ezhilagam, Chennai – 600 005.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 08:08:11 pm )
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
rts
Order in
25.11.2025
(2/2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 08:08:11 pm )
