High Court · 2025

W.P.No.17353 of 2015IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 25.02.2025 CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN W.P.No.17353 of 2015T.N.Kamal Raj,S/o.Mr.Natesa Pillai ... Petitioner Vs.1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Basin Bridge Road, Chennai – 600 003.3.The Director of Town Panchayats, Kuralagam Buildings, 4th Floor, Chennai – 600 108.... RespondentsPrayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the 1st respondent pertaining to its G.O.(D) No.311, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (T.P.4) Department dated 25.08.2014 confirming the order of the 3rd respondent in Na.Ka.No.12136/2006/A1 dated 17.02.2012 and quash the same.1/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17353 of 2015For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ashraf Khan for Mr.B.Sivakumar For Respondents: For R1 and R3: Mr.M.Murali Government AdvocateFor R2: Mr.R.Bharanidharan Standing Counsel ORDERThe petitioner is before this Court against the Impugned Order bearing e/f/vz;/12136-2006-m1 dated 17.02.2012 passed by the 3rd respondent and Order dated 25.08.2014 of the 1st respondent.2. By the Impugned Order dated 17.02.2012, the 3rd respondent has imposed a penalty of stoppage of increment for 1 year with cumulative effect on the petitioner.3. By the Impugned Order dated 25.08.2014, the 1st respondent has rejected the appeal of the petitioner. Operative portion of the Impugned Order of the 1st respondent reads as under:-“nkYk;. ,e;neh;t[py; gpwg;gpf;fg;gltpUf;Fk; ,Wjpahizapy; nky;KiwaPl;lhsUf;F tH';fg;gl;l jz;lidahd mtUila mLj;j Cjpa cah;tpid jpuz;l gaDld; Xh; Mz;Lf;F 2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17353 of 2015epWj;jp itj;J Mizaplg;gl;Ls;sJ/ Mdhy; ,j;jz;lidapy; nky;KiwaPl;lhshpd; Xa;t{jpaj;ij ghjpf;Fk; kw;Wk; mth; vLf;Fk; tpLg;g[ cl;gl vd;gjpid ,Wjpahizapy; bjhptpf;f tpLgl;Ls;sJ/ ,t;tpLghl;oid njh;thizaj;jpd; fUj;jpd; kPJ gpwg;gpf;fg;gLk; ,Wjpahizapy; rhpbra;jpLkhW njh;thizak; murpidf; nfl;Lf;bfhs;fpwJ/,e;neh;tpd; kPJ gpwg;gpf;fg;gLk; Mizapd; efbyhd;wpidj; njh;thizaj;jpd; jftYf;fhf. tpiutpy; mDg;gp itf;FkhW nfl;Lf; bfhs;fpnwd;/ ,e;neh;t[ bjhlh;ghf bgwg;gl;l Mtz';fs; ,t;tYtyff; foj vz;/6696-orpo?m1-2013-2. ehs; 11/07/2014 cld; jdpna mDg;gp itf;fg;gLfpd;wd vd;gija[k; bjhptpj;Jf; bfhs;fpnwd;/” 4. The Impugned Order dated 25.08.2014 has taken concurrence of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) wherein, the Commission has stated as under:-“The Commission has gone through the records relating to this case carefully. After scrutinizing the records, it is clear from empirical documentary evidence that the delinquent officer has failed to undertake pavement, repair maintenance or improvement works in relating to Guduvanchery Bus Stand. Hence, the Commission decided to concur with the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect on the delinquent officer and advises the Government accordingly.”5. The Impugned Punishment/Penalty Order dated 17.02.2012 precedes a Charge Memo dated 20.09.2006 issued to the petitioner when the petitioner was serving as an Executive Officer in Nandivaram-Guduvancheri Town Panchayat. 3/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17353 of 20156. The allegations against the petitioner was that the petitioner failed to maintain the Bus-stand which was under the control of the 3rd respondent and therefore the petitioner was guilty of Rule 20 of The Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973. The charges framed against the petitioner are as under:-“Fw;wr;rhl;L vz;/1fh";rPg[uk; kz;lyk; fh";rPg[uk; khtl;lk; ee;jptuk; TLth";nrhp ngU:uhl;rp Kd;dhs; bray; mYtyh; jpU/j/e/fky;uh$; vd;gth; mg;ngU:uhl;rpapy; bray; mYtyuhf gzpg[hpe;j nghJ mg;ngU:uhl;rp ngUe;J epiyak; Fz;Lk; FHpfSk; epiwe;jjhft[k; jiujsk; gGjhfp ,Ue;j epiyapy; ngUe;J epiyaj;jpid ey;y Kiwapy; guhkhpf;f nkk;ghL gzpfnsh my;yJ guhkhpg;g[ gzpfnsh nkw;bfhs;shky; bghJ kf;fSf;F CW tpistpj;Js;shh;/ ,jd; fhuzkhf ngUe;Jfs; ngUe;J epiyaj;jpy; epw;f ,ayhky; njrpa beL";rhiyapy; ,Ug[wKk; epw;f ntz;oa eph;ge;jk; Vw;gl;L gazpfSf;Fk; nghf;Ftuj;jpw;Fk; ,ila{W Vw;gl fhuzkhf ,Ue;Js;shh;/Fw;wr;rhl;L vz;/2nkw;fz;l bray;fs; K:yk; jkpH;ehL muRg;gzpahsh; elj;ij tpjp 1973 20I kPwpaJ/”7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Impugned Order of the 1st respondent as also the 3rd respondent are without any reasonings and are divorce with the actual ground reality at the Bus-stand. It is submitted 4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17353 of 2015that Government had sanctioned a sum of 97.65 lakhs for construction of the Bus-stand in Guduvancheri and that in the Report dated 26.03.2002 of the Junior Engineer, Town Panchayat, Nandivaram-Guduvancheri, it has been categorically admitted that neither compacting and concreting work for the pathway had been completed nor that soil test was completed. A reference was made as follows from the aforesaid report:“2/ ngUe;J epiyaj;jpw;Fs; fg;gpj;jsk; mikf;Fk; gzp Kotile;J xU khj fhyk; Mfptpl;lJ/ ,jw;fhd jhh; th';fpbfhLj;jhy; jhh;jsk; mikf;Fk; gzp 15 jpd';fSf;Fs; Kof;fg;gLk;/3/ /////4/ /////5/ /////6/ ngUe;J epiyaj;jpw;Fs; rpbkd;l; fhd;fphPl; jsk; mikg;gjw;fhd kz; ghpnrhjid bra;a[k; gzpf;fhd eltof;if Fwpj;J jfty; bjhptpf;FkhW nfl;Lf; bfhs;sg;gLfpwJ/”8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that in response to the Charge Memo dated 20.09.2006, the petitioner had given a reply and it is submitted that the report that was published relating to Nandivaram-Guduvancheri Bus-stand in the Hindu Newspaper on 23.07.2006. It is further submitted that the Joint Director of Town Panchayats along with the Executive Engineer and Assistant Executive Engineer, Kancheepuram took up the Inspection of the Bus-stand on 23.07.2006 and gave instructions to repair the 5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17353 of 2015rain damaged pits within the Bus-stand premises.9. The petitioner had submitted the project report to the Joint Director of Town Panchayats on 23.07.2006 itself regarding cleaning of the Bus-stand and repairs to the rain damaged pits within the Bus-stand premises. 10. It is submitted that in the project report it was stated that the entire repair work and cement concrete pavement works in the Bus-stand can be done only on receipt of Completion Report from the Superintendent Engineer, Municipal Administration and therefore only cleaning and minor repair works were completed on 24.07.2006 and photographs to that effect were also submitted by the petitioner. 11. It is submitted that the petitioner was actually placed under suspension on 25.07.2006 by the 3rd respondent and thereafter Charge Memo was issued to the petitioner on 20.09.2006. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that imposition of penalty viz., stoppage of increment with cumulative effect has cascading effect on the 6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17353 of 2015ultimate pensionary benefits and would have a perennial effect on the petitioner and therefore the Impugned Orders are liable to be set aside.13. It is further case of the petitioner that the petitioner joined as Executive Officer, Nandivaram-Guduvancheri Town Panchayat only on 13.01.2005 and on the same date, the petitioner had inspected the Bus-stand and had noticed that the Bus-stand was not in good condition. Therefore, the petitioner contacted the Technical Authority for carrying out repair works. At that time, the Technical Authority informed the petitioner that repair works can be done only after the receipt of Completion Report for the work done at the Nandivaram Bus-stand in the year 2002. 14. Learned Government Advocate for the 1st and 3rd respondents would submit that the Impugned Orders did not suffer from any infirmity or virus to warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that just and fair punishment has been imposed on the petitioner as the petitioner was negligent in not maintaining the Bus Stand though he had joined as Executive Officer, Nandivaram-Guduvancheri Town Panchayat in the year 2005. 7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17353 of 201515. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Advocate for the 1st and 3rd respondents and the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent. The petitioner was only an Executive Officer of the 3rd respondent.16. The project for the construction of Nandivaram Bus-stand was sanctioned in the year 2000.17. The Bus-stand was constructed by the Government / 3rd respondent by engaging services of a third party contractor between 2000 and 2002. It was opened for public use in 2002 without a “Completion Certificate”. Thus, the Bus-stand was not complete in all aspect. In the report dated 26.03.2002, the Junior Engineer, Town Panchayat, Nandivaram-Guduvancheri, has clearly indicated that there were several deficiencies in the work and that the Bus-stand was opened without obtaining a “Completion Certificate”. 18. The petitioner had also escalated the issue with the Municipal Administration Authorities after joining service in the year 2005 with Nandivaram-Guduvancheri Town Panchayat. However, the Municipal Administration Authorities have stated that in absence of “Completion 8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17353 of 2015Certificate”, no further developments/improvements can be made. Therefore, as an Executive Officer, the petitioner cannot be blamed for the quality of the Bus-stand which was pounded by heavy rain during July 2002. 19. This Court is not sitting as a Court of Appeal with scope of judicial review of punishment orders in disciplinary proceedings. Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the scope of review is limited, as the Court is not sitting as a Court of Appeal, yet the Court can interfere with such orders of the Disciplinary Authority, if they are arbitrary and the punishment imposed is either excessive and/or disproportionate to the charges made against a delinquent employee.20. This Court is of the view that the punishment of stoppage of increment for 1 year with cumulative effect is excessive and disproportionate in the facts of the case, even if the negligence attributed on the petitioner was proved by the Disciplinary Authority.21. Considering the same, the punishment imposed by the 3rd respondent in the Impugned Order bearing e/f/vz;/12136-2006-m1 dated 17.02.2012 which stands affirmed by the 1st respondent in G.O.(D) No.311, Municipal 9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17353 of 2015Administration and Water Supply (T.P.4) Department dated 25.08.2014, is modified to punishment to stoppage of increment for a period of 3 months without cumulative effect. 22. This Writ Petition stands allowed with the above observations. No costs. 25.02.2025Neutral Citation : Yes / NoarbTo:1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Basin Bridge Road,10/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17353 of 2015 Chennai – 600 003.3.The Director of Town Panchayats, Kuralagam Buildings, 4th Floor, Chennai – 600 108.C.SARAVANAN, J.arb11/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17353 of 2015 W.P.No.17353 of 2015 25.02.2025 12/12