[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
The Union Of India vs E.Dinesh Kumar (Died) on 27 February, 2026
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan
2026:MHC:825
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. 17116 of 2023
1. The Union of India
Rep. by the Principal Accountant General (Audit-I),
Tamil Nadu
(Appellate Authority)
Lekha Pariksha Bhavan
No.361, Anna Salai, Teynampet
Chennai – 600 018.
2. Senior Deputy Accountant General (Admn.)
(Disciplinary Authority)
Office of the Principal Accountant General (Audit-I),
Tamil Nadu
Lekha Pariksha Bhavan
No.361, Anna Salai, Teynampet
Chennai – 600 018. ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. E.Dinesh Kumar (died)
S/o. Late M.Elumalai
2. The Registrar
Central Administrative Tribunal
Page 1 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:53 pm )
Chennai Bench, High Court Complex
Chennai – 600 104.
3. Bhavani C.K.
W/o. Late Shri E.Dinesh Kumar
4. Lakshmi Devi
M/o. Late Shri E.Dinesh Kumar
5. Keerthi.D
D/o. Late Shri E.Dinesh Kumar
6. Minor Darshan.D,
S/o. Late Shri E.Dinesh Kumar
Represented by mother and natural Guardian
Mrs.Bhavani C.K. ...Respondents
[R3 to R6 are substituted as LRs of deceased first respondent vide order
dated 08.01.2026 made in WMP.No. 53262 of 2025 in W.P.No. 17116 of
2023 by CVKJ & KBJ]
PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the second
respondent viz., Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench in
O.A.No. 159 of 2021 dated 10.03.2023 and quash the same.
***
For Petitioners : Mr. V.Vijaya shankar
For RR 3 to 6 : Mr.R.Malaichamy
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:53 pm )
The respondents in O.A.No. 159 of 2021 aggrieved by the order
dated 10.03.2023 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, have
filed the Writ Petition.
2. O.A.No. 159 of 2021 has been filed by the first respondent
E.Dineshkumar, who died pending the Writ Petition and whose legal
representatives have been substituted as third to sixth respondents seeking
to set aside the order dated 31.07.2020 and subsequent order dated
01.01.2021 by which orders, the first respondent was dismissed from
service and to reinstate him into service with all attendant benefits
including backwages.
3. The first respondent was working as Senior Auditor in the office
of the Principal Accountant General (Audit-I), Tamilnadu. It was alleged
that he had availed credit purchase on purchase of handloom clothing
material for a sum of Rs.45,377/- from the Tamil Nadu Thillayadi
Valliammal Pattu Maaligai (TVPM) Showroom, Egmore, Chennai, (Co-
optex) during November 2018. It was stated that there was a scheme for
purchase of handloom materials during festival times from Co-optex which
employees could avail by producing a declaration form. After the purchase,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:53 pm )
the amounts would be recovered in monthly installments from their pay.
This particular scheme was discontinued in the year 2018. It was
contended that in November 2018, after the credit purchase scheme had
been discontinued, the first respondent submitted an application form and
availed credit purchase from the Co-optex for a sum of Rs.45,377/-. It was
further noticed that the application form was issued by the office of the
Accountant General (A & E) which is a separate office as distinct from the
office of the Accountant General (Audit-I). It was contended that the first
respondent had played fraud to claim a benefit to which he was not legally
entitled.
4. A charge memo was issued to the first respondent on 01.08.2019.
It is intended that he accepted that a mistake had occurred. An enquiry was
conducted and documents relied were supplied to the first respondent. The
Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 05.06.2020 concluding that the
charges had been established. The first respondent gave his explanation.
The Disciplinary Authority passed the final order on 31.07.2020 imposing
penalty of dismissal from service. The Appeal filed was also dismissed by
the Appellate Authority.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:53 pm )
5. The first respondent then preferred O.A.No. 159 of 2021
before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by its order dated 10.03.2023 held that
the enquiry proceedings were vitiated by not following proper procedure
and in not examining any witnesses to prove the charges. The list of
witnesses were not mentioned in Annexure – IV to the charge sheet. The
Tribunal therefore set aside the punishment and directed fresh enquiry to
be conducted. Challenging this order, the respondents before the Tribunal
have filed the present Writ Petition.
6. Pending the Writ Petition, the first respondent died and his legal
representatives have been substituted as third to sixth respondents.
7. Heard arguments advanced by Mr.V.Vijaya Shankar, learned
Standing Counsel for the writ petitioners and Mr.R.Malaichamy, learned
counsel for the third to sixth respondents.
8. Mr.V.Vijay Shankar, learned Standing Counsel for the writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:53 pm )
petitioners contended that the fact that the first respondent had submitted
bills on an application form issued by the office of the Accountant General
(A&E) wherein he would not an employee and that he had thereafter made
credit purchase from the Co-optex in November 2018 stood proved by the
documents produced during the course of enquiry. The learned counsel
stated that the documents spoke for themselves and there was no necessity
for witnesses to be examined in support of the said documents. The
learned counsel stated that the first respondent was employed in the office
of the Accountant General (Audit-I) and was not eligible to avail the credit
facility for purchase of the cloths from the Co-operative Department. It
was therefore contended that since the documents stood established and
had not been denied or disputed by the first respondent, the authorities had
come to a correct conclusion that the charge had been proved. The learned
Standing Counsel further contended that after following due procedure and
after affording necessary opportunity, the punishment had been imposed by
the disciplinary authority. He argued that the Tribunal should not have
interfered with the said procedure adopted or with the punishment
imposed.
9. Mr.R.Malaichamy, learned counsel for the third to sixth
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:53 pm )
respondents, who were the legal representatives of the deceased first
respondent however contended that the charge memo which had been
issued was bereft of basic details. The learned counsel pointed out that it
was mandatory for the Annexures which accompany a charge memo to
include the list of documents which were relied on by the Department
during the course of enquiry and also the list of witnesses, who would be
called upon to speak about the said documents. The learned counsel stated
that Annexure -III giving the list of documents and Annexure-IV giving the
list of witnesses are mandatory to provide opportunity to any delinquent to
question and challenge a charge memo issued during the departmental
proceedings. It was contended that the Tribunal had correctly appreciated
the fact that the due procedure had not been followed. The learned counsel
further pointed out that the amount said to have been availed of by the first
respondent had been recovered and paid back to the Department. The
learned counsel stated that the first respondent had also died and therefore,
the issue of re-enquiry as directed by the Tribunal would only be an
exercise in futility and therefore urged that the order of dismissal must be
set aside.
10. We have considered the arguments advanced and perused the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:53 pm )
materials available on records.
11. The first respondent E.Dineshkumar was working as Senior
Auditor in the office of the Principal Accountant General (Audit-I).
During festival times, there was a procedure granted to the employees to
avail credit facilities to purchase clothes which should be purchased from
Co-optex. This procedure is said to have been discontinued in the year
2018. The first respondent however produced an application form in
November 2018 from the office of the Accountant General (A&E) wherein
he was not an employee and availed credit facility for a sum of Rs.45,377/-
and purchased clothes. It is contended that this purchase was after the
scheme had been discontinued. It is not in dispute that the amount so
availed had been recovered from the salary of the first respondent.
12. A charge memo was however issued to the first respondent. Any
charge memo contains the charges alleged, the Statement of Imputations
and Annexures giving the list of documents and the list of witnesses. Even
if the documents were part of official records, they would still have to be
proved through an independent witness. If no witness speaks for the
document, it would only indicate that the enquiry officer, who performs the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:53 pm )
duty to adjudicate on the issues also discharges the duty of being the
person, who has proved the documents and had taken the document on
record.
13. The enquiry officer cannot perform the duty of a witness. He
remains an enquiry officer nothing more, nothing less. He should summon
the officers of the Department, to speak up for the said documents. They
should also be cross examined by the delinquent. This is not an empty
formality. If a witness had been examined, the delinquent could have
raised issues about the validity of the application form being issued by the
office of the Accountant General (A&E). He chould have raised the issue
of the amount availed being deducted from the salary and therefore, there
was no loss caused to the Department. He could have raised an issue about
discontinuance or otherwise of the scheme and the applicability of said
discontinuance to him as Senior Auditor. We hold that the first respondent
was denied every opportunity during the departmental procedure.
14. We further hold that the Tribunal had correctly set aside the
entire proceedings and had directed fresh enquiry. However, the first
respondent has died during the pendency of the Writ Petition. His legal
representatives alone are on record. They would be seriously handicapped
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:53 pm )
if they were called upon to participate or even attend the departmental
enquiry. Moreover the charges abate on the death of the public servant.
The punishment of dismissal has already been set aside by the Tribunal.
The issue of re-enquiry has now become otiose and incapable of being
conducting owing to the death of the first respondent. We hold that no
effective purpose will be served by conducting enquiry all over again. The
procedure followed had been correctly set aside by the Tribunal. We find
no reason to interfere with the same.
15. We further hold that the order of dismissal from service is
extremely disproportionate to the nature of the charge alleged against the
first respondent. The Disciplinary Authority should taken into
consideration the fact that the amount advanced had been recovered from
the first respondent.
16. In view of all these reasons, we hold that driving the parties to
re-enquiry would be an exercise in futility particularly as the first
respondent is dead. We would affirm the order of the Tribunal so far as
setting aside the order of dismissal from service is concerned and also
interfere with the order confirming re-enquiry on the entire issue.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:53 pm )
17. We specifically hold that the order of dismissal is set aside and
the directions of the Tribunal to conduct re-enquiry is set aside. The Writ
Petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
18. The writ petitioners are directed to release the terminal
benefits, family pension and any other benefits payable to the family
members of the first respondent payable till the date of superannuation of
the first respondent with in a period of six weeks from this date.
[C.V.K., J.] [K.B., J.]
27.02.2026
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
vsg
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:53 pm )
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 )
