Madras High Court
The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs B.Sivapriya on 13 October, 2025
Author: R. Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
W.A No. 1801 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13-10-2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
W.A No. 1801 of 2024
And
CMP.No. 12930 of 2024
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary to Government
Commercial Taxes and Registration Department
Fort St.George, Chennai-600009.
2.Inspector General of Registration
No.100, Santhome High Road
Mandevellipakkam, R.a.Puram,
Chennai-600028. ..Appellants
Vs
1.B.Sivapriya
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 01:27:45 pm )
W.A No. 1801 of 2024
2. The Inquiry Officer,
District Registrar (Admn)
In the cadre of Assistant Inspector General,
O/o. District Registrar,
South Chennai, Nandanam,
Chennai-600035.
3.The Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
Chennai-600003. ..Respondents
Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent to set aside the
order dated 08.03.2024 passed in W.P.No.22003 of 2023.
For Appellants: Mr. Haja Nazirudeen, AAG
Assisted by
Mr. U. Bharanidaran, Spl.GP
For Respondents : Mr.S.Prabakaran, Senior Counsel – R1
For Mr R.Krishnakumar
JUDGMENT
(Made by HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.)
This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 08.03.2024
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 22003 of 2023. By the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 01:27:45 pm )
order, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of
dismissal passed against the respondent/writ petitioner, and directed the
appellants to reinstate the respondent/writ petitioner into service forthwith,
together with all consequential benefits.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The respondent/writ
petitioner, while serving as District Registrar (Joint I), Saidapet, was issued a
charge memorandum dated 09.11.2018 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu
Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, alleging that, during her tenure as
Sub Registrar, Virugambakkam, she had registered 45 documents involving
government lands, thereby committing misconduct by acting in an irresponsible
manner detrimental to the interests of the Government. The Enquiry Officer
submitted a report holding that the charges stood proved. After issuance of a
show-cause notice and consideration of the petitioner’s response, the
disciplinary authority passed an order dismissing her from service. The learned
Single Judge, after examining the record, set aside the said order of dismissal.
Aggrieved by this decision, the State has preferred the present writ appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 01:27:45 pm )
3. Mr. Haja Nazirudeen, learned Additional Advocate General appearing
for the appellants–State, submitted that the delay in concluding the enquiry was
attributable to the respondent/writ petitioner, as three Enquiry Officers
appointed at different stages were changed at her instance. Therefore, the delay,
if any, cannot be attributed to the appellants. He further contended that there
was no material evidence to substantiate the finding of the learned Single Judge
that the fourth Enquiry Officer, Tmt. Sathyapriya, had collected incriminating
materials against the respondent at the time of framing of charges. Hence, the
finding of bias is unfounded. It was also argued that the delay in completing the
enquiry did not cause any prejudice to the respondent/writ petitioner, and
therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge is unsustainable in law. In
support of his submission, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Union of India & Others v. K.K. Dhawan [(1993) 2 SCC
56].
4. In response, Mr. S. Prabakaran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the respondent/writ petitioner, submitted that the learned Single Judge, after a
meticulous evaluation of the record, rightly concluded that the order of
dismissal stood vitiated on two counts — (i) inordinate and unexplained delay
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 01:27:45 pm )
in both initiating and concluding the disciplinary proceedings, and (ii) bias on
the part of the Enquiry Officer, who had earlier collected incriminating
materials against the petitioner. He, therefore, contended that the impugned
order warrants no interference and sought dismissal of the appeal.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused
the materials placed on record.
6. Admittedly, the charge against the respondent/writ petitioner pertains
to the registration of government lands while she was serving as Sub Registrar
in the year 2010, based on a complaint filed by a member of the public. An
audit inspection conducted in 2013 revealed certain irregularities in the
registration of government lands, allegedly in contravention of Government
Orders and circulars. However, the charge memorandum was issued only on
09.11.2018, i.e., after a lapse of more than five and a half years from the date of
the audit report. The enquiry culminated in the order of dismissal dated
26.06.2023. It is also not in dispute that three Enquiry Officers appointed earlier
recused themselves from conducting the enquiry.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 01:27:45 pm )
7. The appellants contended that such recusals occurred due to objections
raised by the respondent/writ petitioner on grounds of bias. Subsequently, Tmt.
Sathyapriya was appointed as the fourth Enquiry Officer to proceed with the
departmental enquiry.
8. The respondent/writ petitioner, however, contended that she had
addressed a letter dated 03.07.2020 stating that Tmt. Sathyapriya had herself
collected incriminating materials against her, which later formed the basis of the
charges, and therefore, it would not be appropriate for the same officer to act as
Enquiry Officer. This communication was acknowledged by the disciplinary
authority on 03.11.2020, yet no action was taken.
9. Although some explanation was offered for the delay in concluding the
enquiry, there was no explanation whatsoever for the delay in initiating the
disciplinary proceedings when the audit report was received on 18.05.2013, but
the charge memorandum was issued only on 09.11.2018. This unexplained and
inordinate delay amounts to a violation of the principles of natural justice, as the
respondent was left unaware of the alleged misconduct for more than eight
years from the date of the occurrence. Such delay seriously prejudices the right
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 01:27:45 pm )
of defence and defeats the fundamental principle of fairness inherent in
disciplinary jurisprudence. In the absence of any satisfactory explanation, the
initiation and culmination of the disciplinary proceedings stand vitiated as being
arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of natural justice.
10. The learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition, placed
reliance on a catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and rightly
concluded that the inordinate and unexplained delay in initiating the
departmental enquiry had caused serious prejudice to the writ petitioner. The
learned single judge observed that such prolonged and unjustified delay not
only violates the principles of natural justice but also subjects the employee to
undue hardship and mental agony, particularly when no explanation, much less
a satisfactory explanation, has been offered by the disciplinary authority for the
delay in commencing the proceedings.
11. The learned Single Judge also rightly held that the enquiry
proceedings stood vitiated on account of bias. In paragraphs 31 and 32 of the
affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the writ petitioner had specifically
pleaded that the fourth Enquiry Officer, by her letter dated 03.07.2020, had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 01:27:45 pm )
requested permission to recuse herself from conducting the enquiry, stating that
she had collected incriminating materials against the writ petitioner, which in
fact formed the basis for framing the charges. The said categorical averments
made on oath by the writ petitioner were not denied by the appellants in their
counter-affidavit.
12. Furthermore, the subsequent representation dated 03.11.2020, which
was duly acknowledged by the disciplinary authority and countersigned by the
same Enquiry Officer, clearly establishes that the said officer had indeed
participated in the collection of incriminating materials at the stage of framing
the charges. This circumstance, which goes to the root of the enquiry, creates a
reasonable apprehension of bias and undermines the fairness and impartiality
expected in disciplinary proceedings.
13. In light of these undisputed factual circumstances, the finding of the
learned Single Judge that the entire enquiry stood vitiated on the ground of bias
is well-founded and supported by a catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court and various High Courts, which have consistently held that any enquiry
conducted by an officer who has played a role in the preliminary investigation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 01:27:45 pm )
or in the collection of materials forming the basis of the charge, stands tainted
with bias and is liable to be set aside
14. The learned Single Judge also rightly noted that another officer, one
Raghumoorthy, who faced identical allegations relating to registration of
government lands in the audit report , was not subjected to any disciplinary
proceedings. This selective initiation of disciplinary action amounts to hostile
discrimination, violating the guarantee of equality under Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. Such disparate treatment renders the disciplinary action
perverse and unsustainable in law. The learned Single Judge relied upon the
decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bongaigaon Refinery &
Petrochemicals Ltd & Anr. V Girish Chandra Sharma [(2007) 7 SCC 206],
wherein it was held that the Division Bench had correctly assessed the situation,
observing that the respondent was unjustly made a scapegoat, even though the
decision in question was a unanimous decision taken by all three committees
involved in the negotiation process, and the price was finalized collectively. It
was further held that the respondent alone could not be held responsible when
the decision was taken jointly by the committees. If the decision of the
committee is flawed, it cannot be said that the respondent alone is to blame. To
single out one individual for collective action would be arbitrary and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 01:27:45 pm )
unreasonable, for if all the fish stink, it would be unfair to pick only one and say
that it alone stinks, particularly when the decision was unanimous and borne out
of collective deliberation.
15. In view of the foregoing discussion, we have no hesitation in holding
that the unexplained delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings, the
continuation of a biased Enquiry Officer, and the discriminatory treatment
meted out to the respondent, collectively vitiate the order of dismissal. The
learned Single Judge has rightly exercised jurisdiction in setting aside the
impugned order, and the same does not warrant interference by this Court.
16.Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed. The connected
Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(R.S.K.,J) (H.C., J)
13.10.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
ak
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 01:27:45 pm )
To
1. The District Registrar (Admn)
In the cadre of Assistant Inspector General,
O/o. District Registrar,
South Chennai, Nandanam,
Chennai-600035.
2.The Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
Chennai-600003.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 01:27:45 pm )
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
and
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.,
ak
13.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 01:27:45 pm )
