Madrasdated High Court · 2025

W.P.No.4692 of 2023Religious Endowment (HR.2(2)) Dept dated 19.12.2022 and quash the same.For Petitioner : Mr.K.Venkataramani, Senior Counsel for Mr.M.MuthappanFor Respondents : Mr.S.Ravichandran Additional Government Pleader (HR and CE) O RDER This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the 4th respondent dated 09.04.2021, thereby imposing punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect and the order passed by the third respondent dated 19.12.2022, thereby confirming the order passed by the fourth respondent. 2. The petitioner got selected to the post of Executive Officer Grade I and appointed on 14.10.2008 in the department of HR and CE, at Patteswaraswamy Thirukoil, Perur, Coimbatore. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Commissioner of HR and CE, on 28.11.2013. While he was working as an Executive Officer Grade I, he was also given charge of a sub Temple called Angalamman Thirukoil in the same village. It owned 6.91 acres of land comprised in S.No.44/2 at Chettypalayam Village. It also owned another extent of 8.53 acres of land comprised in S.No.412. Both the properties were lying vacant and there is no income from those properties to the Temple. Therefore, the petitioner, after following due process of law, leased out the land Page 2 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.4692 of 2023comprised in S.No.44/2 to an extent of 6.91 acres in favour of one Subramania Bharathi. Insofar as the land comprised in S.No.412 to an extent of 8.53 acres is concerned, it was leased out in favour of one Narayanasamy. Therefore, the petitioner was served with a charge memo dated 11.11.2004 consisting of eight charges. On receipt of the charge memo, the petitioner had submitted explanation and it was not satisfactory in nature and as such, the charges were framed. An Enquiry Officer was appointed to take departmental enquiry. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report stating that out of eight charges, seven charges were proved and the 8th charge as not proved.3. On the basis of the enquiry report, the fourth respondent issued a show cause notice for the proved 7 charges viz., 1 to 7 and also disagreed with the enquiry report, insofar as Charge No.8. On receipt of the explanation from the petitioner, the fourth respondent passed a final order dated 09.04.2021, thereby imposing punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a revision before the third respondent and the same was also dismissed, confirming the order passed by the fourth respondent. Hence, this writ petition.Page 3 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.4692 of 20234. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Enquiry Officer found the Charge Nos.1 to 7 as proved and the Charge No.8 as not proved. When the fourth respondent is disagreeing with the enquiry report, the fourth respondent ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner before coming to the conclusion that Charge No.8 as not proved. Therefore, not giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is a clear violation of Principles of Natural Justice. There was absolutely no discussion about the explanation submitted by the petitioner, while passing the final order by the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent, without even applying his mind, mechanically passed a non-speaking order. After narration of the charge, the statement of charge, the explanation submitted by the petitioner and findings of the Enquiry Officer, punishment was concluded without any discussion. 5. The only allegation as against the petitioner was that without seeking any prior permission from the higher officials, he himself leased out the properties which belonged to the temple. There is no allegation that the petitioner misappropriated the temple money or leased the amount. The Page 4 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.4692 of 2023properties had not fetched any income to the temple and as such, the petitioner, who was being the Executive Officer, leased out the lands that belonged to the temple and generated income to the temple. In fact, the temple has no other income. Therefore, in order to mete out other miscellaneous expenditure, the lands belonging to the temple were leased out. In fact, the petitioner also raised eviction proceedings for non payment of the lease amount by the lessee. According to the Enquiry Officer, Charge No.8 was not proved. Therefore, Charge Nos.1 to 7 were also not proved, since there was no dereliction of duty on the part of the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer failed to follow the procedure as contemplated under the Rules. In fact, the department did not even produce any witness to prove the charges. At the instance of the petitioner, one of the Inspectors of the temple was examined. Therefore, there is no evidence against the petitioner and the findings itself is perverse in the absence of any oral and documentary evidence. 6. He further submitted that there was an enormous delay in passing the final order. The alleged delinquency said to have been taken place in the year 2009-2010. The disciplinary proceedings was initiated in the year 2014. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer was appointed in the year 2016 and he Page 5 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.4692 of 2023submitted a report only in the year 2017. After a period of four years, the final order came to be passed from the date of receipt of the enquiry report. Therefore, the petitioner’s promotions were deferred for long years, since the disciplinary proceeding was pending against the petitioner from the year 2014. The temple land was not leased for personal gain. The petitioner generated income for the temple’s day-to-day expenditure. In fact, there is no appeal provision provided under the Act. Where there is no appeal provision, the petitioner ought to have a only revision petition before an appropriate authority. But, it was considered by the third respondent and the revision was rejected by an order dated 19.12.2022. The third respondent also passed a non-speaking order without meeting the grounds raised by the petitioner by any discussion. 7. In support of his contention, he relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2006 9 SCC 440 in the case of Lav Nigam Vs Chairman and MD, ITI limited and another and the Judgment reported in 2008 8 SCC 236 in the case of State of Uttaranchal and others Vs Kharak Singh.Page 6 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.4692 of 20238. Per contra, the first respondent filed a counter and on the submissions made by the learned Additional Government Pleader (HR and CE) appearing for the respondents revealed that when the petitioner was working as an Executive Officer in the cadre of Grade I at Arulmigu Patteeswarar Temple, Perur, Coimbatore, he had let out the properties owned by the sub temple called Angalamman Thirukoil. The Executive Officer should have ensured that the properties of the sub temple are recorded in the books without any omission. However, he miserably failed to record the properties of the temple. Further, the petitioner, without any prior permission, leased out the properties to third parties, thereby causing loss to the temple. Therefore, the disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules (herein after called as “the Rules”), by issuing charge memo consisting of eight charges. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer was appointed and the Enquiry Officer had conducted a detailed enquiry after following due process of law. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 23.11.2017. As per the enquiry report, except Charge No.8, all the charges were proved. However, the Government decided to deviate from the findings of the Enquiry Officer, insofar as the Charge No.8 and issued show cause notice to submit an explanation. After considering the Page 7 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.4692 of 2023explanation, the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner. It was also confirmed by the third respondent. The petitioner leased out the temple property on his own without conducting any public auction. The petitioner also failed to take any action to vacate the tenants after expiry of the lease period. Further, the rent fixed for the subject property is very meager when compared to the expenditure of the land. Therefore, considering the nature of the allegation, the punishment was imposed on the petitioner and he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader (HR and CE) for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.10. The petitioner was appointed as an Executive Officer Grade-I at Patteswaraswamy Thirukoil, Perur, Coimbatore. This temple has its allied temple called Arulmigu Angalamman Thirukoil in the same village. It has properties. The properties were not leased out to anybody before the petitioner's initiation. When the properties belonged to the temple is kept idle without any income, the petitioner leased out the properties in favour of few persons for Page 8 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.4692 of 2023rent. The lease amount was properly accounted in the temple's account and spent in a proper manner. However, the petitioner was issued with show cause notice consisting of 8 charges as follows:-Page 9 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.4692 of 2023Page 10 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.4692 of 2023Page 11 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.4692 of 202311. On receipt of the charge memo, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation. But it was not satisfactory in nature and the Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct enquiry. After completion of enquiry, submitted a report stating that the charges 1 to 7 as proved and Charge No.8 as not proved.12. The crux of the charges was that the allied temple viz., Arulmigu Angalamman Thirukoil owned two large pieces of land. The said lands were being misused by the trespassers. That apart, one Kulla Gounder claimed to be a tenant for the land comprised in S.No.44/2 to an extent of 6.91 acres for the rent of sum of Rs.400/- per month. It was found to be meager and in fact, without renewal by Resolution or permission from the Department, he was Page 12 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.4692 of 2023squatting over the property. Therefore, in order to improve the income for the temple, the petitioner leased out the subject land in favour of one Subramania Bharathi for a sum of Rs.2800/- to do agricultural activities. In fact, he had committed default in making payment. The petitioner initiated rental proceedings and obtained orders. Likewise, in order to generate income, the property comprised in S.No.412 to an extent of 8.53 acres was also leased out in favour of one Narayanaswamy for a sum of Rs.5,118/-. Thereafter, the rent was fixed at Rs.7500/- per year. Therefore, when the temple was in financial crisis even for day-to-day expenses, the petitioner, in order to generate income for the temple, leased out those lands. The rental amount was properly accounted with the temple's account and spent for the temple. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner had misappropriated the rental amount and caused loss to the temple. Even then, the Enquiry Officer concluded that the Charge Nos.1 to 7 were proved. 13. Admittedly, the Department did not examine any witness except production of some documents. Further, in order to frame the charges under Rule 17(b) of the Rules, the charge memo shall contain the events and circumstances relating to a particular delinquency in all respects. The Charge Page 13 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.4692 of 2023Nos.1 to 7 were pertaining to leasing out the temple's property only. But the charges were split up in order to attract the Rule 17(b) of the Rules. It is mandatory that when the delinquent denied the charges, then the Department shall have to examine the witnesses to mark the documents in respect of delinquency. Therefore, mere marking of documents is not sufficient to prove the charges. Hence, non-examination of the witness for the proof of the charges is fatal and the charges cannot be said to be proved against the delinquent. 14. More over, a perusal of the enquiry report revealed that the Enquiry Officer simply stated the charge, statement of charge and explanation. Finally, he concluded that the Charge Nos.1 to 7 as proved. It is not in consonance and in accordance with law. The Enquiry Officer without even applying his mind, mechanically held that the Charge Nos.1 to 7 as proved. In fact, the Enquiry Officer found that Charge No.8 as not proved. However, the fourth respondent disagrees the findings of the Enquiry Officer and concluded that Charge No.8 as also proved, for the reason that since all the charges are proved against an individual, dereliction of duty is also held as proved. However, the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing before disagreeing with the Enquiry Officer's findings in respect of Charge No.8.Page 14 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.4692 of 202315. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2006 9 SCC 440 in the case of Lav Nigam Vs Chairman and MD.ITI Ltd and another, wherein it was held as follows:-“ 11. In Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra a Bench of this Court considered Regulation 7(2) of the Punjab National Bank Officer Employees' Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977. The Regulation itself did not provide for the giving of any notice before the disciplinary authority differed with the view of the enquiry officer. This Court held:“19. The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision ad can impose of penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.”12 . This view has been reiterated in Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/0583/1999 : AIR 1999 SC 3734 : (1999) 7 SCC 739 : 1999(5) SLR 248 (SC). In this case also Rule 9(2) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 did not specifically provide for a disciplinary authority to give an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent Page 15 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.4692 of 2023officer before differing with the view of the enquiry officer. The Court said:“But the requirement of 'hearing' in consonance with the principles of natural justice even at that stage has to be read into Rule 9(2) and it has to be held that before the disciplinary authority finally disagrees with the findings of the enquiring authority, it would give an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent officer so that he may have the opportunity to indicate that the findings recorded by the enquiring authority do not suffer from any error and that there was no occasion to take a different view. The disciplinary authority, at the same time, has to communicate to the delinquent officer the 'tentative' reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the enquiring authority so that the delinquent officer may further indicate that the reasons on the basis ofwhich the disciplinary authority proposes to disagree with the findings of the enquiring authority so that the delinquent officer may further indicate that the reasons on the basis of which the disciplinary authority proposes to disagree with the findings recorded by the enquiring authority are not germane and the finding of 'not guilty' already recorded by the enquiring authority was not liable to be interfered with.””16. Thus, it is clear that whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the Enquiry Officer on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the Enquiry Officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the Delinquent Officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable Page 16 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.4692 of 2023conclusion of the Enquiry Officer.17. In the case on hand, there was no reason by the disciplinary authority while disagreeing with the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer. That apart, no notice was served on the petitioner before disagreeing with the Enquiry Officer's report. It is a clear violation of Principles of Natural Justice. Further, there was an inordinate delay to complete the disciplinary proceedings. The alleged delinquency said to have taken place in the year 2009-2010. But the charges were issued to the petitioner only in the year 2014. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer completed the enquiry and submitted a report only in the year 2017. After receipt of the enquiry, the disciplinary authority passed an order only after four years. Therefore, the promotion of the petitioner was deferred for so many years, since disciplinary proceeding was pending. 18. In fact, the delay was not explained by the disciplinary authority. The Enquiry Officer failed to follow the procedure. In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2008 8 SCC 236 in the case of State of Uttaranchal and others VS Kharak Singh, wherein it was held as follows:-Page 17 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.4692 of 2023“15. From the above decisions, the following principles would emerge: “ i) The enquiries must be conducted bona fide and care must be taken to see that the enquiries do not become empty formalities. ii) If an officer is a witness to any of the incidents which is the subject matter of the enquiry or if the enquiry was initiated on a report of an officer, then in all fairness he should not be the Enquiry Officer. If the said position becomes known after the appointment of the Enquiry Officer, during the enquiry, steps should be taken to see that the task of holding an enquiry is assigned to some other officer. iii) In an enquiry, the employer/department should take steps first to lead evidence against the workman/delinquent charged, give an opportunity to him to cross-examine the witnesses of the employer.Only thereafter, the workman/delinquent be asked whether he wants to lead any evidence and asked to give any explanation about the evidence led against him. iv) On receipt of the enquiry report, before proceeding further, it is incumbent on the part of the disciplinary/punishing authority to supply a copy of the enquiry report and all connected materials relied on by the enquiry officer to enable him to offer his views, if any.””19. Thus, it is clear that the order passed by the fourth respondent is a non-speaking order and passed without applying mind. The order passed by the third respondent is also a non-speaking order. After narration of all charges, mechanically confirmed the order passed by the fourth respondent, without considering the grounds raised by the petitioner.Page 18 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.4692 of 202320. In view of the above, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the order passed by the fourth respondent in GO(D) No.76, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowment (HR.2(2)) Department dated 09.04.2021 and the order passed by the third respondent in G.O.(D).No.218, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowment (HR.2(2)) Dept dated 19.12.2022 are hereby quashed.21. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.23.10.2025Internet: YesIndex : Yes/NoNeutral Citation: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non Speaking ordermnPage 19 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.4692 of 2023G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,mnTo1. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 34.2. The Joint Commissioner/Enquiry Officer, Arulmigu Kabaleeswar Thirukoil, Mylapore, Chennai - 4.3. The Principal Secretary to Government, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.4. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.W.P.No.4692 of 202323.10.2025Page 20 of 20