High Court · 2025

W.P.No.16176 of 2011IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 16.07.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMARW.P.No.16176 of 2011andW.M.P.Nos. 34695, 34696 & 34697 of 20161.G.Velusamy (Died)2.T.G.Girija Alias Yuvarani3.Geetha4.Yamini... Petitioners*P2 to P4 are substituted as LRs of deceased P1, as per order dated 21.04.2022 in WMP.No.22770 of 2017 in WP.No.16176 of 2011.Vs.1.The Additional Director, Land Survey Records Department, Chennai.2.The Zonal Deputy Director, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.3.The Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Tiruvallur District.... RespondentsPrayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relevant to Page 1 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16176 of 2011the order in Na.Ka.La.1/390/2010 (N.A.) dated 07-02-2011 passed by the 1st respondent by confirming the order in Na.Ka.A3.8452/2009 dated 18-06-2010 passed by the 2nd respondent and Na.Ka.A5/6709/2008 dated 02-11-2009 passed by the 3rd respondent and quash the same as illegal, improper, against the law and natural justice and thereby direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in to his service with effect from 02-11-2009 and pay back all the service benefits to the petitioner immediately.For Petitioner: Mr.N.K.SivakumarFor Respondents: Mr.Yogesh Kanndasan Special Government Pleader. O R D E RThis writ petition was originally filed by the 1st petitioner challenging the order dated 02.11.2009 passed by the 3rd respondent dismissing the petitioner from service as a major of disciplinary action and the respective orders, dated 18.06.2010 and 07.02.2011 passed by the respondent Nos.2 & 1 in the appeal and revision filed there against by the 1st petitioner, confirming the punishment imposed by the 3rd respondent. 2.During the pendency of this writ petition, the 1st petitioner passed away on 28.12.2016 and consequently, the petitioners 2 to 4 herein were brought on record being the legal representatives of the deceased 1st petitioner.3.The brief facts that are relevant for disposal of this writ petition Page 2 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16176 of 2011are as under:3.1. While the 1st petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'petitioner') was working as Sub Inspector of Survey and Land Records, he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings by issuing a charge memo dated 20.11.2008 containing four charges. The said four charges reads as under:“Fw;wr;rhl;Lf;fs; : 1/khh;r; 2008 Vg;uy; 2008 $%d; 2009 $%iy?2008 Mf!;L 2008 Mfpa khj';fSf;fhf ehl;Fwpg;g[fis rkh;g;gpf;fhky; ve;j mwpt[g;g[k; ,y;yhky; jd;dpr;irahf gdpf;F tuhky; epd;Wtpl;lJ/ muR tpjpfSf;F g[wk;ghf bray;gl;lJ/2/jkpH;ehL epy msit eilKiw E}y; tpjpfspd;go bray;glhjJ/3/Ie;J khj';fshf ehl;Fwpg;g[ rkh;g;gpf;fhky; muRg; gdpf;F Fe;jfk; tpistpj;jJ/4/muR gdpapid cjhrPdg;gLj;jpaJ/”3.2. The imputation of the said charges is mentioned at Annexure -2 of the said charge memo, which reads as under: “jpU/$p/ntY}r;rhkp rhh; Ma;thsh; vd;gth; khh;r; 2008 Vg;uy; 2008 $%d;?2008 $%iy 2008 Mf!;L 2008 Mfpa Ie;J khj';fs; ehl;Fwpg;g[ rkh;g;gpf;fhky; muR tpjpfSf;F Fwpg;ghf jkpH;ehL epy msit tpjpfSf;F g[wk;ghf bray;gl;lJld; muR gs;spfSf;F Fe;jfk; Page 3 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16176 of 2011tpistpj;Jk; muRg; gdpapid cjhrPdg;gLj;jpa[k; cs;shh;/ ,jd; K:yk; xU bghWg;g[s;s muR mYtyh; vd;w epiyapy; ,Ue;J tGtp muRg; gzpahsh; my;yhj tifapy; ele;J bfhz;Ls;shh;/” 3.3. It was thereafter, the petitioner submitted his explanation dated 10.12.2008 denying the charges. It was thereafter, an enquiry officer was appointed to conduct enquiry into the charges levelled against the petitioner and accordingly, the petitioner appeared before the enquiry officer on 09.02.2009, 16.02.2009 and sought adjournment and accordingly, the enquiry stand posted to 20.02.2009. However, the petitioner failed to appear on 20.02.2009 on the ground that his wife was seriously ill. It was thereafter, the enquiry officer submitted his report on 16.03.2009 stating that the enquiry was conducted on 09.02.2009, 16.02.2009 and 20.02.2009 holding all the charges as proved. It was thereafter, the said report dated 16.03.2009 was communicated to the petitioner by the 3rd respondent requiring the petitioner to submit his further representation. However, the petitioner, having sought extension of time for submitting his further representation, failed to submit any representation, resulting in the 3rd respondent passing an order bearing Na.Ka.No.A5/6709/2008 dated 02.11.2009, agreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer and imposing the punishment of dismissal from service. The said order passed by the 3rd respondent, though appealed against by the 1st Page 4 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16176 of 2011petitioner, the same was confirmed by the 2nd respondent, and was again further confirmed by the 1st respondent in the revision petition filed by the petitioner. It is aggrieved by the said order passed by the 3rd respondent as confirmed by the respondents 1 & 2, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.4.Heard Mr.N.K.Sivakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.5.Though several contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner alleging violation of principles of nature justice and conducting an ex-parte enquiry behind the back of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to go into all those aspects, as the 1st petitioner failed to raise his objections against the report of the enquiry officer dated 16.03.2009 inspite of affording an ample opportunity to the petitioner. No doubt, the enquiry officer claimed to have conducted an ex-parte enquiry on the failure of the petitioner to appear before him on 20.02.2009. The petitioner having sought time to participate in the enquiry, failed to appear on 20.02.2009. In case, if the petitioner failed to appear for an enquiry on the date fixed, in all fairness, Page 5 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16176 of 2011the enquiry officer ought to have afforded an opportunity to the petitioner by fixing another date. But admittedly, the petitioner was not put on notice for conducting any such enquiry subsequent to 20.02.2009.6.From the perusal of the report of the enquiry officer, it does not appear that the enquiry officer has examined any of the witnesses nor marked any documents by conducting an oral enquiry, but submitted his report holding the charges as proved. However, the petitioner failed to avail the opportunity afforded by the disciplinary authority to raise the objections against the report of the enquiry officer and on the procedure that was followed during the course of enquiry resulting in 3rd respondent passing a final order by dismissing the petitioner from service by an order dated 02.11.2009. 7.After having examined the matter in detail, including the gravity of the charges that are levelled against the petitioner, this Court is shocked to notice that the punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on the petitioner basing on the four charges that are levelled against the petitioner. All the four charges that are levelled against the petitioner as extracted above does not appear to be that serious warranting punishment of dismissal from Page 6 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16176 of 2011service. Let this Court examine the charges in detail. 8.The Charge No.1 levelled against the petitioner is abstaining from legitimate duty without prior intimation and failing to submit the diary for five months. What is the period during which the petitioner abstained from duty is not mentioned in the charge. However, from the allegation that the petitioner has failed to submit his diary for five months, the period of absence is understood as for a period of five months. The next question that would fall for consideration is whether an employee can be dismissed from service for mere absence from duty for five months. Now, it is settled law that mere absence from duty shall not result in imposition of capital punishment taking away the livelihood of the employee in violation of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 9.From the report of the enquiry officer, it is noticed that the enquiry officer did not allege any deliberate absence of the petitioner from duty, in order to treat the same as misconduct on the part of the petitioner. Further, as already noted above, the charge is vague and incapable of being properly explained for want of describing the period during which the Page 7 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16176 of 2011petitioner abstained from duty. The Charge No.3 is again a repetition of Charge No.1 on the ground of failure of the petitioner to submit diaries for five months and thereby creating hardship for the smooth functioning of the Government agency. Even assuming that the said charge is established and true, the same under no circumstances shall result in imposition of capital punishment. The Charge No.2 levelled against the petitioner is that the petitioner did not act as per the Rules prescribed in Tamil Nadu Survey Manual Rules. This charge is also as vague as it can be. What are the Rules that were not followed by the petitioner and what are the instances in which the petitioner has not followed those Rules etc. are not furnished either in the charge memo or in the imputation of the charge which was already extracted herein above. In the absence of any such description nor furnishing the material particulars of the charges levelled against the petitioner, it is impossible for any prudent person to explain such a vague charge. The Charge No.4 is again of committing a dereliction of duty. This charge is also vague and no material particulars are furnished to enable the petitioner to answer the charge. As already noted above, the petitioner has already denied the charges. Thus, all the charges levelled against the petitioner are all vague for want of furnishing basic material particulars. Page 8 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16176 of 201110.Be that as it may, even assuming that all the charges that are levelled against the petitioner are treated as proved against the petitioner, even then, the punishment of dismissal from service is definitely shocking to the conscience of the Court. In the circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned punishment of dismissal from service is wholly unsustainable and the same is accordingly quashed. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner passed away during the pendency of the writ petition on 28.12.2016, this Court does not deem it necessary to remit the matter back to the 3rd respondent for imposing appropriate punishment or redoing the entire exercise, as the petitioner is no more.11.In the light of the above, this Court is of the considered view that it would be in the interest of justice to substitute the punishment of dismissal from service with the punishment of compulsory retirement with effect from 02.11.2009, without any cut in the terminal benefits, as an appropriate punishment, with a view to put a quietus to the matter. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed to the extent of imposing the punishment of dismissal from service duly substituting the same with punishment of compulsory retirement with effect from 02.11.2009, without any cut in the terminal benefits, i.e without applying Rule 39 of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, Page 9 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16176 of 20111973.12.Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to settle the terminal benefits of the 1st petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and release such benefits to the petitioners 2 - 4 herein. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.16.07.2025dpaIndex : Yes / NoSpeaking order / Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation : Yes / NoTo1.The Additional Director, Land Survey Records Department, Chennai.2.The Zonal Deputy Director, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.3.The Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records,Page 10 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16176 of 2011 Tiruvallur District.MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.dpaPage 11 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16176 of 2011W.P.No.16176 of 201116.07.2025Page 12 of 12