[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
R.M.Jayakumar vs Union Of India on 27 February, 2026
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan
2026:MHC:826
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 19.02.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 27.02.2026
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
W.P.No. 12276 of 2025
R.M.Jayakumar
S/o. R.Manickam ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. Union of India
Rep. by Member (P)
O/o. the Secretary
Department of Posts
Dak Bhavan
Sansad Marg
New Delhi – 110 001.
2. The Chief Postmaster General
Tamil Nadu Circle
GPO, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
3. The Director of Postal Services,
O/o. The Post Master General
Southern Region (TN)
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:53 pm )
Tallakulam,
Madurai – 625 002.
4. The Senior Superintendent
RMS, “MA” Division
Department of Posts
Madurai -625 002. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records
pertaining to the order dated 18.12.2024 passed in O.A.No. 136 of 2021 on
the file of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, and quash
the same, consequent to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner
into service with all attendant benefits.
***
For Petitioner : Mr. R.Malaichamy
For Respondents : Ms. Sushma
Senior Panel Counsel
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.)
The petitioner in O.A.No. 136 of 2021 aggrieved by the order dated
18.12.2024 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, has filed the
present Writ Petition.
2. The petitioner had been appointed as Sorting Assistant on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:53 pm )
13.06.1997 in Railway Mail Service (RMS) of the Postal Department
through direct recruitment. He was transferred to Paramakudi and joined
RMS “MA” Division in the office of the Sub Record Office on 22.09.2003.
A charge memo was issued to him on 21.03.2013 under Rule 14 of CCS
(CCA) Rules 1965 containing two allegations.
(i) the first allegation was that he was granted scooter advance for a
sum of Rs.30,000/- and took payment on 03.08.2011 but did not buy any
scooter.
(ii) the second allegation was that he had attended MDCP (Mid-
Career Development Programme) training on 03.09.2012 after the
department had paid hostel fees. He fell ill and complained that he had got
fits. His mother had to be called and he was then taken to the hospital. He
was absent from 03.09.2012 till 15.09.2012. The second charge was that he
absented himself and did not attend the training during that period.
3. An enquiry was conducted and it is contended that the petitioner
had admitted to the allegations. It was therefore held that the charges were
proved. He was imposed with the punishment of compulsory retirement
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:53 pm )
from service. This punishment was challenged by him before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal by its order dated 18.12.2024 dismissed the Original
Application, necessitating filing of the present Writ Petition.
4. Heard arguments advanced by Mr.R.Malaichamy, learned counsel
for petitioner and Ms. Sushma, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the first
to fourth respondents.
5. Mr.R.Malaichamy, the learned counsel for petitioner pointed out
the facts of the case and stated that the petitioner had obtained an advance
of Rs.30,000/- for purchase of a scooter. However, medical advise was
given that he should not drive a two wheeler. It was contended that
therefore, he had not purchased the two wheeler. The learned counsel
contended that the amount received as advance had been collected back by
the respondents together with penalty. With respect to the absence from
training, learned counsel pointed out that the petitioner suffered from fits
and therefore, had to take treatment for the same and he was hospitalised.
The learned counsel stated that for these two charges, the imposition of
penalty of retirement from service was disproportionate. The learned
counsel further contended that no enquiry was conducted and the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:53 pm )
was not provided opportunity to place any fact before the enquiry officer
including records relating to his medical condition. The learned counsel
therefore contended that the order of the Tribunal must be set aside.
6. Ms. Sushma, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondents
however argued that the petitioner had financially benefited while
receiving advance towards purchase of scooter. He had not purchased the
scooter and had also not submitted documents towards purchase of scooter.
The learned counsel argued that if the petitioner had a history of suffering
from fits attack then, he should never have applied for the scooter advance.
The learned counsel stated that the petitioner had also absented himself
from 03.09.2012 till 18.09.2012. It was pointed out that both the
allegations were admitted and stood proved during the course of enquiry. It
was argued that the punishment imposed was commensurate with the
nature of the charges alleged.
7. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced and
perused the materials available on records.
8. The writ petitioner had been selected through direct recruitment
for the post of Sorting Assistant on 13.06.1997 in Railway Mail Service
(RMS) of the Postal Department. He was then transferred to Paramakudi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:53 pm )
and joined RMS “MA” Division in the office of the Sub Record Office on
22.09.2003.
9. The petitioner had applied for a scooter advance for purchase of a
scooter and also received a sum of Rs.30,000/-. It is an admitted fact that
he did not purchase a scooter.
10. The petitioner had been deputed to attend MDCP training on
03.09.2012. He went of the training but suffered from fits. His mother was
called and he was taken to the hospital. He was absent from 03.09.2012
till 18.09.2012. This period had been regularised by grant of leave without
pay.
11. Enquiry was conducted against the petitioner for the two
allegations. A perusal of the records reveal that during the enquiry
proceedings, a presenting officer was not appointed. In the absence of the
presenting officer, the enquiry officer himself conducted the enquiry. This
procedure does not withstand the scrutiny of the Court. The enquiry officer
has to adjudicate on the issues presented before him. He has to give a
finding on the documents presented. He has to analyse the evidence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:53 pm )
presented and render a finding whether the charges stood established or
not. But he can never take on the role of a presenting officer which is a
distinct and separate role in itself.
12. In the instant case, the specific allegation against the procedure
adopted during enquiry is that the enquiry officer conducted the enquiry in
the absence of the presenting officer and obtained signatures of the
petitioner in a statement as if the petitioner had admitted the charges. The
petitioner was then inflicted with a major punishment of compulsory
retirement from service.
13. It is to be seen that the specific case of the petitioner was that he
was under treatment for nervous disorder due to epilepsy and that the
Doctor had advised him not to drive a scooter. The total advance received
by him for purchase of the scooter with penal interest had been recovered
from the salary. It is also to be noted that the charge memo had been issued
after the recovery of all amounts payable by the petitioner had been
completed. We hold that imposition of penal interest itself is a punishment
imposed on the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:53 pm )
14. With respect to the second charge, the petitioner had attended
the MCDP training and he also joined the hostel but however he fell ill
owing to epilepsy attack. This was caused by a typhoid fever. He took
treatment from the Government hospital, Paramakudi and medical
certificate was also issued. The period from 03.09.2012 till 18.09.2012
was also subsequently regularised as grant of leave on loss of pay. We hold
that there cannot be a further punishment imposed over being absent for
that period. We hold that the petitioner cannot be inflicted with a major
punishment of compulsory retirement on the flimsy nature of the two
charges.
15. We further hold that the punishment imposed is
disproportionate to the nature of the allegations. The enquiry officer had
failed in providing proper opportunity to the petitioner. Documents should
have been marked and witnesses should have been examined to speak up
about the documents. The petitioner should have been afforded an
opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. He should have been afforded
an opportunity to present his medical records for consideration.
Unfortunately, the respondents had taken note of the statement made by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:53 pm )
him admitting receipt of the scooter advance. He could never have denied
the same since it is a fact that he had received the loan amount. It is a
further fact that the amount was recovered with penal interest and only
after effecting recovery, the charge memo had been issued.
16. We hold that imposing punishment of compulsory retirement
was extremely disproportionate to the nature of the allegations particularly
since the petitioner had been denied proper opportunity. We further hold
that remitting the matter back for fresh enquiry would only be an exercise
which would protract and prolong the agony of the petitioner herein. We
would therefore exercise our discretion and impose a punishment of cut of
increment for two years with cumulative effect. The petitioner has
considerable service ahead of him and these factors play interfering with
the punishment imposed and modifying the punishment to cut of increment
for two years with cumulative effect. We hold that this would serve the
ends of justice.
17. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner back in
service. The period of service is to be regularised and the petitioner is
entitled for continuity of service but however since he had not worked, he
is not entitled for back wages. The respondents cannot treat the
interregnum period as break in service. Necessary orders in this regard are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:53 pm )
to be passed within a period of four weeks from this date. The punishment
imposed is modified to cut in increment for two years with cumulative
effect.
18. The Writ Petition stands disposed of by modifying the
punishment imposed. No order as to costs.
[C.V.K., J.] [K.B., J.]
27.02.2026
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
vsg
To:
1. The Member (P)
O/o. the Secretary
Union of India
Department of Posts
Dak Bhavan
Sansad Marg
New Delhi – 110 001.
2. The Chief Postmaster General
Tamil Nadu Circle
GPO, Anna Salai,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:53 pm )
Chennai – 600 002.
3. The Director of Postal Services,
O/o. The Post Master General
Southern Region (TN)
Tallakulam,
Madurai – 625 002.
4. The Senior Superintendent
RMS, “MA” Division
Department of Posts
Madurai -625 002.
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
AND
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
vsg
Pre-Delivery Order made in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:53 pm )
27.02.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:53 pm )
