Madrasdated High Court · 2025

W.P.No.18113 of 20252. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant in the Revenue Department on 10.08.1994. Subsequently, she was promoted to the post of Assistant, Deputy Tahsildar, Tahsildar, Deputy Collector and finally to the post of District Revenue Officer on 05.06.2020. She had discharged her duties as a quasi-judicial authority for determining the market value of the property as per Section 47-A of Indian Stamp Act, 1899[hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’]. While the petitioner was working as District Revenue Officer from 05.06.2020 to 26.07.2023, as a quasi-judicial authority, she had determined the market value of the property adhering to the statutory formalities envisaged under the Act. While so, the third respondent had recorded adverse remarks in her Annual Confidential Report [hereinafter referred to as “ACR”] with an intention to deprive her promotional avenue to the post of conferred IAS for the period 16.06.2021 to 31.03.2022. 3. It was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.27493 of 2023. This Court by an order dated 13.12.2024 allowed the writ petition thereby setting aside the adverse remarks entered in the ACR. This Court specifically held that the petitioner passed the said orders by exercising her quasi-judicial authority for determining the market value of the 3/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.18113 of 2025property and the same is subject to statutory appeal. The provision for Second Appeal to this Court is provided under Sections 47-A(5) and 47-A(10) of the Stamp Act, and therefore, the guidelines cannot form the basis for initiation of disciplinary proceedings.4. The said order became final, since no appeal was filed by the respondents. 5. Thereafter, the third respondent has been repeatedly initiating disciplinary proceedings as against the petitioner to deprive her legitimate promotional avenue to the post of IAS conferment. For the very same reason, the petitioner was served with charge memo by the second respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.31403 of 2024 for a direction to include her name in the panel of District Revenue Officer for the year 2012 and include her name into the selection list of 2023 of the State Civil Service Officers of Tamil Nadu for appointment to the cadre of Indian Administrative Service. 6. This Court, by an order dated 17.02.2025 allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to refix her seniority below one Mr.Christy in the cadre of District Revenue Officer and directed to 4/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.18113 of 2025include the name of the petitioner in the selection list for the year 2023 and forward the same to the Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions and the Union Public Service Commission within a period of two weeks and for the selection list for the year 2023, the Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions and the Union Public Service Commission are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment to the cadre of IAS. However, there was five days delay in uploading the said order. In the meantime, the second respondent issued the present charge memo with an intention to nullify and overreach the order passed by this Court and also with a malafide intention to prevent the petitioner from becoming an IAS officer. 7. The second and third respondents have filed counter affidavits. 8. It is submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General that the ACR and the charge memo issued on the petitioner are one and the same and it is relevant to extract the same, which reads as follows:5/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.18113 of 20256/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.18113 of 20257/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.18113 of 20258/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.18113 of 20259/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.18113 of 20259. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that the charge memo can be challenged only on three grounds, which reads as follows:(i) if the charge memo issued is without jurisdiction;(ii) with malafide intention; and(iii) violation of any statutory provisions.10. The charge memo on the petitioner relates to determining the value of the property and thereby causing huge loss to the exchequer by the petitioner. Therefore, it shall be looked into by way of enquiry. If at all the petitioner submits an explanation for the charge memo, it will be 10/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.18113 of 2025considered in the lines of the grounds raised by the petitioner. Therefore, challenging the charge memo at the very begining is premature. In support of his contention, he also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No. 18296 of 2023, in which, the Hon’ble Division Bench held that if the charge memo has been issued by an incompetent authority having no jurisdiction or an allegation of malafide is raised against the authority competent, it can be challengeable. In the absence of any specific pleading the quashment of charge memo cannot be considered.11. Heard both sides and have perused the records.12. When this Court set aside the ACR in W.P.No.27493 of 2023 by an order dated 13.12.2024, has observed as follows:“ 11. As far as the present case on hand is concerned, the writ petitioner has received positive acclamation almost for three consecutive years in the Annual Confidential Report from the Reporting Authority as well as the Reviewing Authority. However, the performance for the period from 16.06.2021 to 31.03.2022, though the Reporting Authority has given extraordinary remark for the performance of the petitioner and also awarded 9.5 points out of 10 for her performance and overall grading as 11/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.18113 of 2025recorded that the collection campaign is commendable as contribution in the special Revenue Officer, but the Reviewing Authority has disagreed with the remarks of the Reporting Authority. But merely stated the officer has incurred heavy loss to the Government by fixed lesser values in 47(A) cases. Furthermore, the 3 rd respondent passed the impugned order by stating that the action of the petitioner forced the Inspector General of Registration to review the case decided by the petitioner under Section 47(A) of the Act. It is also seen by the Inspector General of Registration on 04.05.2023 has issued a letter NO.46204/L3/2022-1 dated 13.04.2023 as follows:,k;Kidg;g[ ,af;fj;jpid rPupa Kiwapy; elj;jp Koj;J Rkhhu;“ 4723 Mtz';fs; kw;Wk; U:/26/53 nfho tN:ypj;Js;sjw;F vdJ kdkhu;e;j ghuhl;Lf;fs;/ ”12. It is an admitted fact that the order passed under Section 47(A) of the Act is appealable to the Chief Revenue Controlling Authority/Inspector General of Registration in terms of Section 47(A)(6) of the Act. If any person is aggrieved by the order under Section 47(A) of the Act can file an appeal before the Inspector General of Registration by invoking Section 47(A)(6) of the Act. Merely because, the orders passed by the petitioner under Section 47(A) of the Act were reversed by the Inspector General of Registration by invoking under Section 47(A)(6) of the Act does not warrant the 3 rd respondent to come to the conclusion that the petitioner's performance was not satisfactory that too 12/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.18113 of 2025same the 3 rd respondent has enlarges acclamation to the petitioner in these proceedings. 13. When the petitioner was performing as District Revenue Officer, Chennai, there is no reason stated by the 3 rd respondent while disagreeing the remarks of the petitioner passed by the Reporting Officer. Merely the statement of disagreement cannot itself constitute the disagreement to the remarks made by the Reporting Officer. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the confidential report is intended to general assessment of the work performance of the Government Servant, who subordinate to the Reporting Authority. Such reports are maintained only for the purposes of determining the relative merit when the questions of promotion, confirmation, etc., arises and also laid down a law in Dev Dutt vs. Union of India reported in 2008 (8) SCC 725 with regard to communication of all entries in Annual Confidential Report of a pertinent nature to the employee concerned the case, if he/she wish to represent against the same to the Competent Authority for her upgradation. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also explained the principles of natural justice and it became applicable to the person who passes the Annual Confidential Reports, the 3rd respondent while disagreeing with the Reporting Authority had not given any opportunity to the petitioner before entering adverse remarks. Further, the authority cannot take into the stand that she does not deserve any promotion is not acceptable. It is also clear that the employee is legitimately earning outstanding in 13/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.18113 of 2025particular regime which in the successive year reduced to the satisfactory or even adverse to that particular year, it would certainly affect one state or other of her career. The 3 rd respondent not only stating disagreeing and also without stating a valid reason for disagreeing other than stating that the Inspector General of Registration is forced review the orders passed by the petitioner and further added that she does not deserve any promotion. This is absolutely incorrect, as the 3 rd respondent had no reason to state that the petitioner does not deserve any promotion while passing the disagreeing remark. If any reason is to be recorded, it should be done after taking the opportunity to the petitioner before disagreeing. The petitioner ought to have been given such an opportunity. Without giving any opportunity for the disagreeing remarks, the 3 rd respondent straightaway comes to the conclusion that the petitioner does not deserve any further promotion when she has been awarded 9 out of 10 in ACR This Court is of the opinion that the adverse remarks are not in consonance with the decisions taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various cases as discussed earlier and hence, this Court is of the view that the impugned adverse remarks dated 04.08.2023 deserve to be set aside, and the writ petition has to be allowed.” 13. Thus, it is clear that the third respondent intentionally with malafide intention disagreed their recommendation and recorded adverse remarks against the petitioner in the ACR. One step ahead, the third 14/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.18113 of 2025respondent also recorded that the petitioner does not deserve any further promotions, when she has been awarded 9 out of 10 in ACR. Therefore, the adverse remarks made by the third respondent are not in consonance with the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 14. In W.P.No.31403 of 2024 dated 17.02.2025, this Court observed as follows:“47. Once, it has come to the notice of this Court that the authorities, for extraneous considerations resort to victimization of their employees, inspite of the employees being honest and straight-forward and the State should act as the model employer to others, however, brushing aside the same, the State has embarked upon a victimizing attitude in the present case, which made the petitioner to run from pillar to post to get herself absolved of the delinquencies. The petitioner had not only discharged her work well, but the petitioner also received the appreciation from her Reporting Authorities, who have given her a superfluous assessment, which clearly shows that the petitioner has been targeted for other reasons and this Court hopes and trust that henceforth, the State shall see to it that none of the officers suffer the wrath of persons merely for certain extraneous reasons which are makeshift reasons shown to be connected with the employment of the said officer as that would not only boost the image of the State, but also would act as a antidote for the unscrupulous authorities from scuttling the progress of individual employees, 15/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.18113 of 2025who discharged their work, without fear or favour and thereby uplift the image of the Government in the eyes of the general public. 48. For the reasons aforesaid, this Writ Petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly, the same is allowed with the following directions:(i) The first respondent, after refixing the seniority of the petitioner below Mr.Christy in the cadre of District Revenue Officer and upon completing the ACRs of the petitioner in the said cadre as also the earlier cadres, is directed to include the name of the petitioner in the Select List for the year 2023 and forward the same to the second and third respondents namely, The Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions and the Union Public Service Commission and the aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.(ii) On receipt of the Select List for the year 2023 from the first respondent, the 2nd and 3rd respondents are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner, recommended by the first respondent for appointment to the cadre of IAS and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of such recommendation.(iii) There shall be no order as to cost. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.” 15. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner has run from pillar to post to get herself absolved of the alleged delinquencies. Therefore, this Court allowed the writ petition.16/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.18113 of 202516. Just before uploading the said order, the present impugned charge memo served on the petitioner for the very same set of allegations was issued. It is also evident from the counter filed by the second respondent that adverse remarks were made in the ACR as she had incurred heavy loss to the Government by fixing lesser value in the cases referred under Section 47-A of the Act. For the very same set of allegations, the impugned charge memo has been issued against the petitioner. That apart, the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.27493 of 2023 is also confirmed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in W.P.No.1200 and 1302 of 2025 by an order dated 30.06.2025. The Hon’ble Division Bench observed that the adverse remarks are unwarranted since those charges regarding the orders passed under Section 47-A of the Act were subject matter of a charge memo and those charges have also been quashed.17. Therefore, the very basis on which the adverse remarks were made has disappeared and therefore, the adverse remarks being the consequence will also have to go. Therefore, the present charge memo has been issued with malafide intention to revive back the adverse remarks against the petitioner and to curtail the conferment of the petitioner to the post of Indian Administrative Service.17/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.18113 of 202518. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and this court repeatedly held that the orders passed by the quasi-judicial officers cannot attract charge memo. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Zunjararrao Bhikaji Nagarkar Vs. Union of India reported in 1999 (7) SCC 409, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:“43. If every error of law were to constitute a charge of misconduct, it would impinge upon the independent functioning of quasi-judicial officers like the appellant. Since in sum and substance misconduct is sought to be inferred by the appellant having committed an error of law, the charge-sheet on the face of it does not proceed on any legal premise rendering it liable to be quashed. In other words, to maintain any charge-sheet against a quasi-judicial authority something more has to be alleged that a mere mistake of law, e.g., in the nature of some extraneous consideration influencing the quasi-judicial order. Since nothing of the sort is alleged herein the impugned charge-sheet is rendered illegal. The charge-sheet, if sustained, will thus impinge upon the confidence and independent functioning of a quasi-judicial authority. The entire system of administrative adjudication whereunder quasi-judicial powers are conferred on administrative authorities, would fall into disrepute if officers performing such functions are inhibited in performing their functions without fear or 18/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.18113 of 2025favour because of the constant threat of disciplinary proceedings.” 19. Thus it is clear that, in order to maintain the charge sheet as against a quasi-judicial officer, there must be an allegation than a mere mistake of law i.e., in the nature of extraneous consideration influencing the quasi-judicial officer. On perusal of the entire charge memo, there is no such allegation as against the petitioner except that the petitioner determined the value of the property on a lesser value and caused loss to the exchequer.20. Further, while the petitioner was exercising her quasi-judicial function under Section 47-A of the Act and if the Department is not satisfied with the valuation, nothing would prevent them to file an appeal before the second respondent. Therefore, in the absence of motive or bad intention no charge memo could be framed as against the quasi-judicial officer.21. That apart, the petitioner had filed a writ petition in W.P.No.16862 of 2023 for a direction, directing the respondents to revise her seniority in the cadre of Deputy Collector for the year 2008 – 2009 19/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.18113 of 2025and the District Revenue Officer for the year 2013 – 2014. This Court, by an order dated 17.02.2025, issued directions to refix the seniority of Deputy Collector and District Revenue Officer and to grant all service benefits within the stipulated time. Accordingly, by an order dated, 21.08.2024, the seniority of the petitioner was revised in the cadre of Deputy Collector for the year 2008-2009. However, the seniority of the petitioner in the cadre of District Revenue Officer was not revised for extraneous consideration. In fact, her juniors had been appointed with the conferment of IAS even in the year 2021-2022 selection list. Hence, the petitioner’s legitimate appointment to IAS cadre has now been arbitrarily deprived by not revising her seniority and also by issuing the charge memo one after the other that too for the very same allegations, which was already quashed by this Court. 22. In view of the above, the charge memo cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the charge memo vide No.42569/V3/V4/2023 dated 29.01.2025 stands quashed. The third respondent is directed to forward the selection list for the year 2023 of the State Civil Service Officers of Tamil Nadu to the fourth respondent by including the name of the petitioner forthwith for conferment of the petitioner to the cadre of Indian Administrative Service.20/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.18113 of 2025With these observations, this writ petition is allowed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 19.11.2025 mpIndex:Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/NoTo1. The Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.2. The Inspector General of Registration, O/o. Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Road, Mullima Nagar, Mandavelipakkam, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028.3. The Secretary to Government, Public Department, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.4. The Secretary, Union Public Service Commission, New Delhi – 69.5. The Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, (Department of Personnel and Training) New Delhi – 1.21/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.18113 of 2025G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.mpW.P.No.18113 of 202519.11.202522/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.18113 of 2025W.P.No.18113 of 2025G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.The matter is listed today under the caption 'for being mentioned' in the Chamber at the instance of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in third sentence of paragraph 22 of the order, dated 19.11.2025, this Court directed as under:“The third respondent is directed to forward the selection list for the year 2023 of the State Civil Service Officers of Tamil Nadu to the fourth respondent by including the name of the petitioner forthwith for conferment of the petitioner to the cadre of Indian Administrative Service.”and instead, the Court may direct the third respondent to forward the integrity certificate of the petitioner to the fourth respondent forthwith for conferment of the petitioner to the cadre of Indian Administrative Service. Therefore, he prays for appropriate corrections.23/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.18113 of 20253.In view of the said submission, the third sentence of paragraph No.22 of the order, dated 19.11.2025 shall be substituted with the following:“....... The third respondent is directed to forward the integrity certificate of the petitioner to the fourth respondent (UPSC) forthwith for conferment of the petitioner to the cadre of Indian Administrative Service. ”4. In all other aspects, the order dated 19.11.2025 shall remain unaltered.5.Registry is directed to carry out the aforesaid corrections and issue corrected copy to the respective parties. 19.12.2025 ps24/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.18113 of 2025G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.psW.P.No.18113 of 202519.12.202525/25