Madras High Court
M.S.Selvi vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 9 September, 2025
Author: R. Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
W.A No. 2636 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09-09-2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
W.A No. 2636 of 2025
M.S.Selvi ..Appellant
Vs
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu
Rep by its Secretary to Government
Highways and Minor Ports Department,
For St.George, Chennai-9.
2.Director General,
Highways Deparment,
Integrated Chief Engineer Office Campus,
Guindy, Chennai-25. ..Respondents
Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent to set aside the order
dated 16.07.2025 passed in W.P.No. 32810 of 2024.
For Appellant: Mr.S.R.Rajagopal, Senior Counsel
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 04:40:57 pm )
W.A No. 2636 of 2025
For Respondents : Mr.E.Veda Bagath Singh, Spl.GP
JUDGMENT
(Made by HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.)
This intra-Court appeal is directed against the order dated 16.07.2025
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 32810 of 2024, whereby the
challenge made by the appellant/writ petitioner to the punishment imposed by
the respondent-disciplinary authority—viz., stoppage of increment with
cumulative effect came to be rejected.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:
The appellant, while serving as Superintending Engineer, was issued a charge
memo dated 29.09.2021, which contained the following articles of charge:
That said Tmt. M.S. Selvi, formerly Superintending Engineer,
National Highways, Tirunelveli, and presently Superintending
Engineer (H), NABARD and Rural Roads, Tirunelveli Circle,
during her tenure as Superintending Engineer, National Highways,
Tirunelveli from 25.06.2018 to 21.01.2019, invited tenders for five
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 04:40:57 pm )
works under the Central Road Fund Scheme, vide Tender Notice
No. 02/2018-2019/HDO dated 25.06.2018. One of the contractors,
Thiru M. Murugan, submitted tenders for three works. The tender
opening was initially fixed on 02.08.2018 but was subsequently
postponed to 09.08.2018, 11.08.2018, 13.08.2018, and finally
opened on 20.08.2018. During the pendency of the tender process,
on 07.08.2018, the appellant along with another contractor, Thiru
A. Kamaraj, visited the residence of the said contractor, Thiru M.
Murugan. By doing so, the appellant is alleged to have committed
misconduct unbecoming of a responsible officer.
That during the same period, the appellant, along with Thiru M.
Murugan, Divisional Engineer, visited the tractor showroom
owned by Thiru M. Madasamy, son of the aforesaid contractor, on
09.08.2018, purportedly for the trivial purpose of obtaining the
phone number of the contractor in connection with a petition
received against him, even though the tender process was ongoing.
By so acting, the appellant is alleged to have committed
misconduct.
That the appellant failed to maintain absolute integrity and
devotion to duty, thereby violating Rule 20(1) of the Tamil Nadu
Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1973.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 04:40:57 pm )
3. As the disciplinary authority was not satisfied with the explanation
offered by the appellant, an enquiry officer was appointed. The enquiry officer,
after conducting the enquiry, submitted a report holding that Charge No. 1 was
not proved, whereas Charges No. 2 and 3 stood proved. The appellant
submitted a detailed representation in response to the second show-cause
notice. The disciplinary authority, after considering the enquiry report and the
representation, ultimately imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment
with cumulative effect. The learned single judge confirmed the order of
punishment vide impugned order.
4. Assailing the order of the learned single judge , Mr. S.R. Rajagopal,
learned senior counsel for the appellant, contended that the charges levelled
against the appellant are trivial and vague, and even if taken at face value, do
not amount to misconduct warranting the imposition of a penalty. It was further
submitted that the disciplinary authority did not assign any cogent or
independent reasons for differing from the findings of the enquiry officer in
respect of Charge No. 1, but merely adopted the conclusions of the enquiry
officer with respect to Charges No. 2 and 3, without properly evaluating the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 04:40:57 pm )
appellant’s explanation. Consequently, the order is arbitrary, discriminatory,
and violative of principles of natural justice.
5. Per contra, Mr. Veda Bagath Singh, learned Special Government
Pleader appearing for the respondents, contended that the disciplinary
authority, after duly applying its mind and considering the explanation of the
appellant, concluded that the charges stood proved, and therefore imposed the
penalty. It was argued that the punishment imposed is proportionate and does
not warrant interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction.
6. We have heard the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel
for the parties and carefully perused the records.
7. The essence of the allegation against the appellant is that, during the
pendency of the tender process, she visited the residence of one of the bidders
and that her driver visited the showroom belonging to the bidder’s son for the
purpose of obtaining the contractor’s phone number. However, as correctly
recorded by the enquiry officer, no material was placed either before him or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 04:40:57 pm )
before the superior authority to establish that any mala fides could be attributed
to the appellant, or that she had shown undue favour to the contractor in
question. Significantly, the said contractor, Thiru M. Murugan, was not
awarded the tender, which circumstance reinforces the conclusion that the visit
of the appellant to his residence was casual in nature.
8. With regard to Charge No. 2, the enquiry officer observed that it was
in fact the appellant’s driver who had gone to the contractor’s showroom to
collect a phone number, while the appellant remained seated in the car. Again
no material was placed either before him or before the superior authority to
establish that any mala fides could be attributed to the appellant, or that she had
shown undue favour to the contractor on account of her driver visiting the
tractor showroom.
9. The detailed explanation submitted by the appellant in her reply to the
second show-cause notice, though recorded in the impugned order, was not
considered or dealt with. No reasons were assigned for rejecting the appellant’s
defence.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 04:40:57 pm )
10. It is a settled principle that an order imposing punishment must be a
reasoned and speaking order, reflecting due application of mind. The
requirement is rooted in the principles of natural justice, for only by furnishing
reasons can it be demonstrated that justice has not only been done but has also
been seen to have been done. In the absence of any evidence to establish mala
fides or to prove that the appellant’s visits had any nexus with the tender
process or resulted in favouring the contractor, the order of punishment is not
sustainable. The perfunctory manner in which the disciplinary authority
imposed the punishment, without adverting to the explanation offered by the
appellant, renders the order arbitrary, non-speaking, and violative of natural
justice.
11.The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition primarily on the
ground that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings is limited,
and interference is warranted only where the findings are perverse or the
decision is vitiated by illegality. While the principle of limited judicial review
is well established, in the present case, the punishment imposed suffers from
non-application of mind, absence of reasons, and violation of the principles of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 04:40:57 pm )
natural justice, thereby rendering the decision itself perverse in law. Moreover,
in view of the vagueness of the charges and the absence of any material
attributing mala fides to the appellant, the appellant cannot be punished merely
for allegedly visiting the contractor’s residence or for her driver having visited
the contractor’s tractor showroom.
12. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion
that the impugned order of punishment cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the
intra-Court appeal is allowed. The order dated 16.07.2025 passed by the
learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 32810 of 2024 is set aside. Consequently, the
order of punishment passed by the first respondent in G.O. (D) No. 62 dated
24.07.2024 is also quashed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(R.S.K.,J) (H.C., J)
09.09.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
ak
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 04:40:57 pm )
To
1. The Secretary to Government
Highways and Minor Ports Department,
For St.George, Chennai-9.
2. The Director General,
Highways Department,
Integrated Chief Engineer Office Campus,
Guindy, Chennai-25.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 04:40:57 pm )
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
and
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.,
ak
09.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 04:40:57 pm )
