[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
S.Raja Mohamed vs The Director Of Horticulture And on 25 February, 2026
W.P.No.7083 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.02.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
W.P.No.7083 of 2019
S.Raja Mohamed
S/o.Sahul Hameed
formerly Joint Director of Horticulture
Flat No.B2, L 104, Naveen Spring
Field Apartments Vadakkupattu, Kovilambakkam
Medavakkam, Chennai-100. ... Petitioner
vs.
1. The Director of Horticulture and
Plantation Crops
Chennai-5.
2. The Agriculture Production Commissioner and
Secretary to Government
Agriculture Department
Fort St.George, Chennai-9. … Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the 2 nd respondent in
connection with the impugned orders passed by him in GO(3D) No.68,
Agriculture (AA8) Department dated 22.05.2018 and quash the same.
Page Nos.1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 11:33:39 am )
W.P.No.7083 of 2019
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Venkatramani
Senior Counsel
for Mr.M.Muthappan
For Respondents : Mr.P.Kumaresan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by
Ms.V.Yamuna Devi
Special Government Pleader
*****
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.05.2018 bearing
reference No. GO(3D) No.68, Agriculture (AA8) Department, issued by the
second respondent. By the said order, the petitioner was imposed with the
punishment of recovery of a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month from his pension
for a period of two years and recovery of Rs.7,992/- from his retirement
benefits.
2. The petitioner, while serving as Joint Director in the Horticulture
Department, was issued a charge memo dated 20.03.2017. The allegation
against him was that, during his tenure as Assistant Director in the
Horticulture Department in the year 2010–2011, he had mechanically
approved 32 applications without verifying the land particulars mentioned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 11:33:39 am )
therein. It was alleged that, based on the selection made by the Assistant
Horticulture Officer and the recommendation of the Horticulture Officer,
Vilathikulam, 2,200 tamarind saplings were issued to 32 farmers at the rate
of Rs.7.50 per sapling under the 50% Government subsidy component of the
Integrated Horticulture Development Scheme. It was further alleged that
subsidy benefits were extended to five ineligible farmers, each receiving 50
tamarind saplings, and that the petitioner failed to verify the genuineness of
the beneficiaries, thereby violating the norms and guidelines of the Scheme.
3. The petitioner submitted his reply denying the charges. A
departmental enquiry was thereafter initiated, and an Enquiry Officer was
appointed. The petitioner participated in the enquiry proceedings, and his
defence statement was recorded. Upon consideration of the documentary
evidence and the petitioner’s defence, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report
holding that the charges stood proved.
4. The petitioner submitted a further representation dated 24.04.2018
challenging the findings of the Enquiry Officer. However, the second
respondent, after referring to the enquiry report and extracting portions of
the petitioner’s further explanation, passed the impugned order imposing the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 11:33:39 am )
aforesaid punishment.
5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that
the alleged misconduct pertains to the year 2010–2011, whereas the charge
memo was issued only on 20.03.2017, after an inordinate and unexplained
delay of more than seven years, and just prior to the petitioner’s retirement
on 31.07.2017. It was submitted that such belated initiation of proceedings
has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner.
6. It was further contended that the primary responsibility of
collecting and verifying land particulars rested with the subordinate officers,
namely the Assistant Agricultural Officer and the Horticulture Officer, and
that the saplings were supplied only based on their recommendations. Even
according to the Enquiry Officer’s report, out of 32 beneficiaries, 27 were
found eligible and only five were found ineligible, constituting a ratio of
84:16. Therefore, it was argued that no deliberate misconduct or mala fide
intention can be attributed to the petitioner. It was also pointed out that no
disciplinary action was initiated against the subordinate officers responsible
for verification of records, and that selective initiation of proceedings
against the petitioner alone is arbitrary and discriminatory.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 11:33:39 am )
7. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the Disciplinary
Authority failed to independently consider the petitioner’s further
explanation before accepting the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The
impugned order merely reproduces the charges, defence statement, and
findings, without assigning independent reasons for rejecting the petitioner’s
explanation. Such non application of mind, it was contended, amounts to
violation of the principles of natural justice.
8. In response, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted
that vigilance enquiry was conducted against the petitioner as well as one
Narayanaswamy, and departmental proceedings were initiated against the
said officer also, wherein the charges were held proved. It was submitted
that, in the absence of perversity in the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the
Disciplinary Authority was justified in accepting the report and imposing
punishment.
9. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and
perused the materials available on record.
10. The charge relates to alleged non verification of records pertaining
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 11:33:39 am )
to the year 2010–2011. The charge memo was issued only in January 2017,
prior to the petitioner’s retirement on 31.07.2017. No satisfactory
explanation has been offered for such inordinate delay in initiating the
proceedings.
11. The Enquiry Officer’s report itself records that during a function
organized for distribution of tamarind saplings near Idaichiamman Temple,
farmers were invited and their land details, survey numbers and related
documents were collected. The report further indicates that verification of
records was undertaken by the Horticulture Officer and staff. The mistakes
in survey numbers and village names in respect of five beneficiaries were
attributed primarily to the subordinate officers. Nevertheless, the petitioner
was held responsible on the ground that, as Assistant Director, it was his
duty to verify all records before sanctioning distribution.
12. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner had earlier challenged
his suspension before this Court in W.P.No.21089 of 2017, and by order
dated 01.09.2017, this Court directed the second respondent to pass final
orders in the disciplinary proceedings within four weeks. However, the
impugned order came to be passed only on 22.05.2018, after a delay of more
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 11:33:39 am )
than seven months, without any explanation for non compliance with the
direction of this Court.
13. It is a settled principle that a disciplinary order must reflect
independent application of mind by the Disciplinary Authority. Mere
reproduction of the enquiry findings and extraction of the delinquent
officer’s explanation, without assigning specific reasons for accepting the
findings and rejecting the defence, renders the order unsustainable. A
reasoned order is an essential component of natural justice.
14. In the present case, the impugned order does not disclose
independent reasoning. It fails to consider the limited extent of irregularity,
the absence of any finding of mala fide intention or personal gain, the
primary responsibility of subordinate officers in verification of records, and
the unexplained delay in initiation and conclusion of proceedings. These
factors cumulatively vitiate the disciplinary action.
15. In view of the above, this Court holds that the impugned order
dated 22.05.2018 bearing reference No. GO(3D) No.68, Agriculture (AA8)
Department, is arbitrary, discriminatory and in violation of the principles of
natural justice, and therefore cannot be sustained in law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 11:33:39 am )
16. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed. The impugned
order is set aside. The respondents are directed to refund the amount of
Rs.2,000/- per month, totalling Rs.48,000/-, deducted from the petitioner’s
pension, without interest, within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
25.02.2026
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
Speaking / Non-speaking
mk
To
1. The Director of Horticulture and
Plantation Crops
Chennai-5.
2. The Agriculture Production Commissioner and
Secretary to Government
Agriculture Department
Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 11:33:39 am )
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.,
mk
25.02.2026
(1/2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 11:33:39 am )
