Madras High Court
The Additional Chief Secretary vs Mrs.N.Lakshmi on 4 September, 2025
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
Rev.Aplw.No.229 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.09.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Review Application No.229 of 2025
in
W.P.No.2872 of 2023
1.The Additional Chief Secretary
To Government
Municipal Administration and
Water Supply (ME-II) Department
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration
11th Floor, Urban Administrative Building
No.75, Santhome High Road
MRC Nagar, Raja Annamalaipuram
Chennai 600 028.
..Review Applicants
Respondents
Vs.
Mrs.N.Lakshmi
W/o.Desingu
Accountant
Panruti Municipality
Panruti, Cuddalore District
Residing at No.8, Neelambari Street
Vallalar Nagar, Villupuram-605 602. .. Respondent
PRAYER: Review Application has been filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC
r/w Section 114 of C.P.C., to review the order dated 22.10.2024 in WP.No.2872
of 2023.
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2025 02:03:51 pm )
Rev.Aplw.No.229 of 2025
For Applicants : Mr.M.Suresh Kumar
Additional Advocate General
Asst.by:
Mr.C.Selvaraj
State Government Advocate
For Respondent : Mrs.B.Sharmila
ORDER
This review application has been filed to review the order passed by this
Court in WP.No.2872 of 2023 dated 22.10.2024.
2.The review application was filed with a delay of 252 days and this
Court, considering the reasons assigned in the affidavit filed in support of the
application and also the grounds raised in the review, condoned the delay by
order dated 25.08.2025 and directed the Registry to list the review application
for final hearing.
2.Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned counsel
for the respondent.
3.The learned Additional Advocate General primarily raised three
grounds while seeking for the review of the order passed by this Court in the
writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2025 02:03:51 pm )
4.The first ground that was raised by the learned Additional Advocate
General is that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated as against five
Delinquent Officers including the writ petitioner. One of the Delinquent Officer
was a Municipal Commissioner of Panruti Municipality against whom disciplinary
proceeds were initiated under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services
[Discipline and Appeal] Rules 1955. Insofar as the other Delinquent Officers
are concerned, the charge was under Rule 8(2) of the Tamil Nadu Municipal
Services [Discipline and Appeal] Rules, 1970. Since the appointing authority of
the Municipal Commissioner is the Government, the procedure as contemplated
under Rule 9(A) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services [Discipline and Appeal] Rules
1955, was strictly followed. This rule specifically states that when more than
one Government servant of the same department are jointly involved or whose
cases are interconnected, the Competent Authority to institute disciplinary
proceedings shall be the immediate higher authority in that department in
respect of the Government servant who holds the higher post amongst such
Government servants and the disciplinary proceedings against all of them shall
be taken together. In view of the same, the disciplinary proceedings was
conducted by the Government as against all the delinquent officers including
the petitioner. The learned Additional Advocate General therefore submitted
that paragraph 16 of the order passed in WP.No.2872 of 2023, dated
22.10.2024, requires review.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2025 02:03:51 pm )
5.The second ground that was raised by the learned Additional Advocate
General is that this Court had proceeded on the premise that the punishment
imposed against the writ petitioner of stoppage of increment for two years with
cumulative effect is a major penalty and whereas, under Rule 3(2) of the Tamil
Nadu Municipal Services [Discipline and Appeal] Rules, 1970, the same is
brought under minor penalty. Therefore, the finding rendered at paragraph 17
of the order requires review.
6.The third ground that was raised by the learned Additional Advocate
General is that this Court had rendered a finding as if the original authority and
the appellate authority are one and the same and the Government has adorned
the role of disciplinary authority and the appellate authority and therefore this
Court interfered with the proceedings on this ground also. The learned
Additional Advocate General pointed out to Rule 14 of the Municipal Service
Rules Proviso to Rule 14 of the Municipal service rules states that where the
appellate authority who has passed the original order imposing the penalty
happens to be the State Government, the person aggrieved by the order can
again appeal to the State Government to reconsider the order. Thus, this rule
contemplates a situation where the same State Government can be the
authority passing the original order as well as dealing with the appeal and
passing orders in the appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2025 02:03:51 pm )
7.In reply to the above submissions, the learned counsel for the writ
petitioner submitted that Rule 9A will not apply to the facts of the present case.
The learned counsel submitted that the said rule will apply only where all the
delinquent officers are Government servants and whereas, in the case in hand,
except the first delinquent officer, all the other delinquent officers were
employees of the Municipal Corporation who are governed by the Municipal
Services [Discipline and Appeal] Rules 1970. Therefore, Rule 9A will not come
to the aid of the review applicants.
8.Insofar as the second ground is concerned, the learned counsel for the
writ petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in
Kulwant Singh Gill .v. State of Punjab reported in 1991 SCC Suppl (1)
504 and para 4 of the judgment is extracted hereunder:
4.Withholding of increments of pay simpliciter
undoubtedly is a minor penalty within the meaning of Rule 5( iv).
But sub-rule (v) postulates reduction to a lower stage in the time
scale of pay for a specified period with further directions as to
whether or not the government employee shall earn increments
of pay during the period of such reductions and whether on the
expiry of such period the reduction will or will not have the effect
of postponing the future increments of his pay. It is an
independent head of penalty and it could be imposed as
punishment in an appropriate case. It is one of the major
penalties. The impugned order of stoppage of two increments
with cumulative effect whether would fall within the meaning of
Rule 5(v)? If it so falls Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules require
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2025 02:03:51 pm )
conducting of regular enquiry. The contention of Shri Nayar,
learned counsel for the State is that withholding two increments
with cumulative effect is only a minor penalty as it does not
amount to reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay. We
find it extremely difficult to countenance the contention.
Withholding of increments of pay simpliciter without any hedge
over it certainly comes within the meaning of Rule 5(iv) of the
Rules. But when penalty was imposed withholding two
increments i.e. for two years with cumulative effect, it would
indisputably mean that the two increments earned by the
employee was cut off as a measure of penalty for ever in his
upward march of earning higher scale of pay. In other words the
clock is put back to a lower stage in the time scale of pay and on
expiry of two years the clock starts working from that stage
afresh. The insidious effect of the impugned order, by necessary
implication, is that the appellant employee is reduced in his time
scale by two places and it is in perpetuity during the rest of the
tenure of his service with a direction that two years' increments
would not be counted in his time scale of pay as a measure of
penalty. The words are the skin to the language which if peeled
off its true colour or its resultant effects would become apparent.
When we broach the problem from this perspective the effect is
as envisaged under Rule 5(v) of the Rules. It is undoubted that
the Division Bench in Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab [ILR
(1985) 2 P&H 193 : (1985) 1 SLJ 513 (P&H)] , P.C. Jain, A.C.J.
speaking for the Division Bench, while considering similar
question, in paragraph 8 held that the stoppage of increments
with cumulative effect, by no stretch of imagination falls within
clause (v) of Rule 5 or in Rule 4.12 of Punjab Civil Services Rules.
It was further held that under clause (v) of Rule 5 there has to be
a reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by the
competent authority as a measure of penalty and the period for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2025 02:03:51 pm )
which such a reduction is to be effective has to be stated and on
restoration it has further to be specified whether the reduction
shall operate to postpone the future increments of his pay. In
such cases withholding of the increments without cumulative
effect does not at all arise. In case where the increments are
withheld with or without cumulative effect the government
employee is never reduced to a lower stage of time scale of pay.
Accordingly it was held that clause (iv) of Rule 5 is applicable to
the facts of that case. With respect we are unable to agree with
the High Court. If the literal interpretation is adopted the learned
Judges may be right to arrive at that conclusion. But if the effect
is kept at the back of the mind, it would always be so, the result
will be the conclusion as we have arrived at. If the reasoning of
the High Court is given acceptance, it would empower the
disciplinary authority to impose, under the garb of stoppage of
increments, (sic stoppage) of earning future increments in the
time scale of pay even permanently without expressly stating so.
This preposterous consequence cannot be permitted to be
permeated. Rule 5(iv) does not empower the disciplinary authority
to impose penalty of withholding increments of pay with cumulative
effect except after holding inquiry and following the prescribed
procedure. Then the order would be without jurisdiction or authority
of law, and it would be per se void. Considering from this angle we
have no hesitation to hold that the impugned order would come
within the meaning of Rule 5(v) of the Rules; it is a major penalty
and imposition of the impugned penalty without enquiry is per se
illegal.
9.The learned counsel by relying upon the judgment submitted that the
stoppage of increments for 2 years with cumulative effect is certainly a major
penalty and Rule 3(2) which was relied upon by the learned Additional
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2025 02:03:51 pm )
Advocate General only speaks about withholding of increments and it is silent
about whether it is with cumulative effect or without cumulative effect.
10.Insofar as the third ground is concerned, the learned counsel for the
writ petitioner submitted that when the representation was made by the
petitioner seeking for the review of the order passed, none of the grounds was
raised by the petitioner was considered and no reasons were assigned and
therefore the order passed by the disciplinary authority and the order passed
by the Government confirming the same required the interference of this Court
considering the fact that a major penalty was involved in this case.
11.This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either
side and the materials available on record.
12.When dealing with a review application, the Court must only see as
to whether the order suffers from an error apparent on the face of the order.
In the name of review, the Court cannot rehear the matter and reappreciate
the facts and come up with a new finding.
13.The issues that have been raised in this review application can be
dealt with by first considering the nature of punishment that was imposed
against the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner was imposed with a punishment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2025 02:03:51 pm )
of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect. The learned
Additional advocate General by relying upon Rule 3 submitted that such
stoppage of increment is only a minor penalty. This submission of the learned
Additional Advocate General can hold water if such stoppage of increment was
without cumulative effect. However, when it has been given cumulative effect
for two years, the implication of such a punishment will be that the delinquent
employee will be reduced in his time scale by two places and it will act in
perpetuity during the rest of tenure of his service. That is the reason why the
Apex Court in the judgment in Kulwant Singh Gill case referred supra has
concluded that such a punishment is certainly a major penalty.
14.I concur with the submission of the learned counsel for the writ
petitioner that the penalty that was imposed against the writ petitioner of
stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect, is certainly a major
penalty.
15.In the light of the above finding, the other two issues raised in the
review application has to be dealt with by this Court.
16.It is submitted that since one of the delinquent officer was a
Municipal Commissioner and the Government is the appointing authority, all the
delinquent officers will have to be dealt with together by the same disciplinary
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2025 02:03:51 pm )
authority which happens to be the Government.
17.The above ground need not detain this Court too long to find the
answer since even assuming that the Government is the disciplinary authority,
the penalty imposed is a major penalty and the disciplinary authority is
expected to give the reasons for differing with the enquiring officer and record
reasons in the order. This Court has rendered a finding in the writ petition that
there are absolutely no reasons assigned while imposing the major penalty
against the petitioner. Therefore, this finding will not in any way get altered
just because the Government also happens to be the disciplinary authority in
this case.
18.The above reasoning will equally apply to the third ground that was
raised on the side of the review applicants. Considering the fact that a major
penalty was imposed against the writ petitioner, that does not in any way take
away the duty assigned on the part of the disciplinary authority to assign
proper reasons more particularly since the disciplinary authority was completely
differing from the finding of the enquiry officer.
19.In the light of the above discussion, this Court does not find any
ground to review the order passed in the writ petition and accordingly, this
review application stands dismissed. Even while allowing the writ petition,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2025 02:03:51 pm )
this Court did not foreclose the review applicants from instituting fresh
proceedings. This Court had only held that in the absence of instituting any
fresh proceedings against the writ petitioner, all the attendant benefits, both
the monetary and service benefits, must be extended to the petitioner. The
said direction issued by this Court shall be strictly complied with.
20.The writ petitioner has been suffering the punishment from the year
2021 onwards and therefore, if at all the review applicants wants to continue
with the disciplinary proceedings, it will start from the stage of the report of the
enquiry officer who found that none of the charges were proved. The entire
proceedings shall be concluded within a period of eight weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of this order.
21.In the result, this review application is dismissed. No costs.
04.09.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
KP
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2025 02:03:51 pm )
kp
To
Mrs.N.Lakshmi
W/o.Desingu
Accountant
Panruti Municipality
Panruti, Cuddalore District
Residing at No.8, Neelambari Street
Vallalar Nagar, Villupuram-605 602.
Review Application No.229 of 2025
in
04.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2025 02:03:51 pm )
