Madrasdated High Court · 2025

W.P.Nos.16335 and 16336 of 2014R.Balasubramanian... PetitionerVs.1.The Secretary to Government,Revenue (Ser.3(1) Department,Government of Tamil Nadu,Fort St.George,Chennai – 600 009.2.The District Collector,Tuticorin District,Korampallam,Tuticorin – 628 101.3.The Principal Accountant General (A & E)Tamil Nadu,Anna Salai,Chennai – 600 018. ... RespondentsWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or directive in the nature of the writ by calling for the records relating to the order dated 19.02.2014 passed in G.O.(2D).No.153 Revenue (Ser-3(1) Department) on the file of the first respondent herein and to quash the same.W.P.No.16335 of 2014:For Petitioner : Mr.S.Subbiah Senior Counsel for M/s.Elizabeth Ravi Mr.P.RajaFor Respondents :Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Faizil for R1 and R2 Additional Government PleaderW.P.No.16336 of 2014:2/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.16335 and 16336 of 2014For Petitioner in both W.Ps: Mr.S.Subbiah Senior Counsel for M/s.Elizabeth Ravi Mr.P.RajaFor Respondents in both W.Ps :Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Faizil for R1 and R2 Additional Government Pleader : No appearance for R3C O M M O N O R D E R The issues involved in these captioned writ petitions are interlinked. Therefore, they are taken up together, heard, and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The writ petition in W.P.No.16335 of 2014 assails the order dated 13.08.2012 issued by the first respondent, whereby the petitioner, who was then working as an Excise Supervisory Officer, was imposed with the major penalty of compulsory retirement from service. 3. The writ petition in W.P.No.16336 of 2014 challenges the order dated 19.02.2014 issued by the first respondent, wherein it was stated that, consequent upon his compulsory retirement, the petitioner would be entitled only to two-thirds of his eligible pension and the death-cum-retirement gratuity.3/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.16335 and 16336 of 2014 4. The petitioner, while serving as an Excise Supervisory Officer, was issued a show cause notice enclosing a charge memo calling upon him to explain as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against him. The charges were as follows:● Charge 1: During the period from 05.11.2002 to 16.12.2003, while working in the office of the Assistant Commissioner (Excise), Tuticorin, the delinquent officer, along with nine employees of the TASMAC Godown (namely Gopalakrishnan, Kalyani, Jagannathan, Murugiah, Gurusamy, Jayamanickam, Veeraputhiran, Kanagaraj, and Krishnan), in collusion with retail licensees, accountants, and employees, collected illegal gratification. Initially, the collection was made through the Office Assistant Veeraputhiran or the security personnel, and after 19.12.2002, it was made through outsiders.●Charge 2: On 14.01.2003, the delinquent officer, along with the said 4/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.16335 and 16336 of 2014nine employees of the TASMAC Godown, jointly collected a sum of ?4,330/- as bribe from retail sale licensees, accountants, and employees, when they came to purchase liquor. The collection was allegedly made through outsiders, namely Mr. H. Mathan Kumar, Mr. V. Murugan, and Mr. D. Rajkumar.●Charge 3: The delinquent officer collected bribes by misusing his official position, thereby acting contrary to law.●Charge 4: By failing to dedicate himself to his duties with honesty and integrity, the delinquent officer violated Rule 20 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1973. 5. The petitioner asserts that he submitted a detailed explanation denying the charges. However, according to him, the Enquiry Officer, without properly considering his explanation, proceeded with the enquiry and ultimately submitted a report holding that all charges against the 5/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.16335 and 16336 of 2014petitioner stood proved. 6. Following the submission of the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority (first respondent) issued a second show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why the findings of the enquiry officer should not be accepted. The petitioner submitted a further response. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority, upon consideration of the enquiry report and the petitioner’s further response, passed the impugned order dated 13.08.2012, compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service. Subsequently, by order dated 19.02.2014, the first respondent directed that the petitioner would be entitled only to two-thirds of the pension along with death-cum-retirement gratuity. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petitions have been filed. 7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are wholly unsustainable, inasmuch as they are based primarily on the statements of prosecution witnesses and unsupported by any documentary evidence. He contended that the testimony of the said witnesses did not establish that the petitioner had personally received any illegal gratification as alleged in the charge memo.6/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.16335 and 16336 of 2014 8. It was further argued that the disciplinary authority, while accepting the enquiry report, did so mechanically and without assigning any independent reasons. According to the learned Senior Counsel, such a course of action is in violation of the principles of natural justice, thereby rendering the impugned order of compulsory retirement legally unsustainable. 9. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the following decisions:1.Basudev Dutta vs. State of West Bengal and others [2024 SCC Online 3616]2.Union of India and Others vs. R.P. Singh [(2014) 7 SCC 340]3.Tamil Nadu Unaided Polytechnic Management Association vs. State of Tamil Nadu [(2018) 4 CTC 129] 10. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the enquiry officer’s findings were based on clear and cogent evidence adduced during the enquiry. It was argued that the prosecution witnesses’ statements sufficiently established that the petitioner, while functioning as an Excise Supervisory Officer, had received illegal gratification.7/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.16335 and 16336 of 2014 11. It was further submitted that the disciplinary authority, after duly considering both the enquiry report and the petitioner’s further response, rightly imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement. Therefore, in the absence of any illegality, perversity, or procedural infirmity, the impugned orders are fully sustainable in law. The writ petitions, being devoid of merit, deserve to be dismissed. 12. The arguments of the learned counsels on either side were heard, and the materials available on record have been carefully perused. 13. Upon recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the enquiry officer reached the following findings:8/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.16335 and 16336 of 20149/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.16335 and 16336 of 201410/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.16335 and 16336 of 201411/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.16335 and 16336 of 201412/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.16335 and 16336 of 2014 14. A perusal of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer reveals that PW-1 admitted that the petitioner neither demanded any money for himself nor received any amount. PW-2, in his cross-examination, stated that he was not certain whether the alleged payment of Rs.50/- was made directly to the petitioner. None of the prosecution witnesses specifically stated that the petitioner had received any gratification from the retail licensees, accountants, or employees when they came to purchase liquor. The allegations, therefore, are only hearsay. In the absence of any substantive or corroborative evidence to establish the charges against the petitioner, and in the absence of any complaint from the retail licensees, accountants, or employees, the finding of the Enquiry Officer is without any substance. 15. Following the submission of the enquiry report, the petitioner was called upon to submit a further response, which he duly submitted. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Disciplinary Authority has not given any independent reasoning with respect to Charge No.4. The impugned order merely states that, since Charges No.1 to 3 stood proved, 13/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.16335 and 16336 of 2014Charge No.4 also stood proved, and therefore, punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed upon the petitioner. To that effect, an opinion was obtained under Rule 18(1)(b)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Regulations, and acting upon the advice of the Service Commission, the punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed.16. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Basudev Dutta vs. State of West Bengal and others [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3616] has categorically held that it is settled law that every administrative or quasi-judicial order must contain reasons. Recording of reasons ensures that the authority has applied its mind to the facts and law, provides the aggrieved party a basis to challenge the order in the manner known to law, and enables judicial authorities to test the correctness of such order while exercising the power of judicial review. In the absence of reasons, the order cannot be sustained. 17. It is also relevant to extract Rule 18(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, which reads as follows:Rule 18(a): Records to be maintained by authorities imposing penalties:The authority imposing any penalty under these rules shall 14/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.16335 and 16336 of 2014maintain a record showing—(i). the allegations upon which action was taken against the person punished;(ii). the charges framed, if any;(iii). the person’s representation, if any, and the evidence taken, if any; and(iv). the findings and the grounds thereof, if any. 18. As per the above Rule, if the Disciplinary Authority fails to record specific findings and the grounds thereof while imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement, such action amounts to a violation of the principles of natural justice. 19. In light of the foregoing discussion, the impugned order passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing compulsory retirement on the petitioner, and the consequential order restricting him to 2/3rd of admissible pension, are not legally sustainable and are liable to be set aside. 20. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 13.08.2012 issued by the first respondent in W.P.No.16335 of 2014, and the order dated 19.02.2014 passed in G.O.(D).No.153, Revenue (Ser-3(1)) Department, are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to re-fix and pay all monetary 15/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.16335 and 16336 of 2014benefits and other consequential benefits flowing from this order. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, including fixation of pensionary benefits. 21. With the above observations, this writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.08.08.2025Index : Yes/NoInternet : Yesmsv To1.The Secretary to Government,Revenue (Ser.3(1) Department,Government of Tamil Nadu,Fort St.George,Chennai – 600 009.2.The District Collector,Tuticorin District,Korampallam,Tuticorin – 628 101.3.The Principal Accountant General (A & E)Tamil Nadu,Anna Salai,Chennai – 600 018.HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.16/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.16335 and 16336 of 2014 msv W.P.Nos.16335 and 16336 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 08.08.202517/17