High Court · 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 25.03.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULAW.P No.34762 of 2019 andWMP.Nos.35508 & 35510 of 2019K.Rajendran,S/o.T.Krishnaswamy,No.24, Cholan Street,Ashok Nagar Kondur Post,Cuddalore District 607 006. ...Petitioner /vs/1.The State of Tamilnadu represented by Its Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Fort St George Chennai 600 009.2.The Director of Public Libraries, 737/1 Annasalai, Chennai 600 002. ... RespondentsWrit Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a WRIT OF CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS calling for the records on the file of first respondent in GO(1D) No.118 School Education (Public Libraries-1) Department dated 23-4-2019 and quash the same and direct the respondents to pay all his retirement benefits and other service and monetary benefits forthwith. 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis For Petitioner: Mr.S.SelvathirumuruganFor Respondents: Mr.A.M.Ayyadurai, Government AdvocateORDERHeard Mr.S.Selvathirumurugan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.A.M.Ayyadurai, learned Government Advocate for the respondents and perused the material available on record. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order of punishment imposed by the first respondent dated 23.4.2019 in GO(1D) No.118 School Education (Public Libraries-1) Department, on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and that the charge memo has been issued by the authority who is not competent. 3. The petitioner has been working as District Library Officer and he was administring 173 library across the district. He was given with a charge memo stating that he had incurred expenditure without getting proper permission and there was misappropriation. At the conculsion of the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer, the petitioner has been punished with a punishment of recoveryof Rs.1000/- for a period of two years and to deduct a sum of Rs. 5,12,152/- from the 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis gratuity due to be paid to the petitioner. 4.The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been given the order of Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission only along with punishment order and he was not allowed to make any representation by furnishing the copy of the Tamil Nadu Public Services Commission's approval before imposing the order of punishment. The further argument of the petitioner is that the person who has issued the charge memo against thepetitioner has got no jurisdiction to issue the same.5. The petitioner has not challenged the charge memo on the ground that the charge memo has been issued by an officer who is not competent. The petitioner has participated in the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer without challenging the charge memo on the ground of lack of jurisidiction. 6. On perusal of the report of the Tamil Nadu Public Services Commission also, it appears that Tamil Nadu Public Services Commission had concurred with the punsihment proposal sent by the Government.3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

7. The learned counsel for thepetitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in Union of India and others Vs. R.P.Singh reported in (2014) 7 Supreme Ccourt Cases 340. In the said judgemnet, it is held as under:"26. We have referred to the aforesaid decision in extenso as we find that in the said case it has been opined by the Constitution Bench that non-supply of the enquiry report is a breach of the principle of natural justice. Advice from the UPSC, needless to say, when utilized as a material against the delinquent officer, it should be supplied in advance. As it seems to us, Rule 32 provides for supply of copy of advice to the government servant at the time of making an order. The said stage was in prevalence before the decision of the Constitution Bench. After the said decision, in our considered opinion, the authority should have clarified the Rule regarding development in the service jurisprudence."8. The petitioner cannot establish any prejudice caused to him for not furnishing the concurrent report of Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission before the awarding the punishment. Becuase the concurrence report of Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission would also approve the punishemnt contemplated aginst the petitoner and hecne no prejudice is caused to the petitioner. 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

9. As the petitioner has been given with several charges and out of 23 charges, 17 charges have already been proved and there is no mateirals to make out a point that there was a violation of principle of natural justice, I find no grounds for interference. The punishment imposed for the petitioner also not disproponate to shock of the conscience of this Court. The punishemnt commenesurated with the charges and the court has got very limited scope to interfere with the order of punishment while exercising Article 226 jurisdiction. 10. In the judgment of the Hon-ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others Vs. P.Gunasekaran reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610 it is held that in any case the High Court shall not act as an Appellate Authority in disciplinary proceedings. For a better appreciation, the relevant part of the judgment is extracted below:"13. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, re-appreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge no. I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis venture into re- appreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether:a. the enquiry is held by a competent authority;b. the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in thatbehalf;c. there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conductingthe proceedings; d. the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;e. the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;f. the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion;g. the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence;h. the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;i. the finding of fact is based on no evidence.Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:(i). re-appreciate the evidence;(ii). interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis (iii). go into the adequacy of the evidence;(iv). go into the reliability of the evidence;(v). interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based.(vi). correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;(vii). go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.?"11. None of the above ground has been made out in this present pettion and hence I do not find any merit. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 25.03.2025Index: Yes Internet : Yes/Nojrs7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis R.N.MANJULA , J. jrsTo1.The Principal Secretary to Government, State of Tamilnadu School Education Department, Fort St George Chennai 600 009.2.The Director of Public Libraries, 737/1 Annasalai, Chennai 600 002.W.P No.34762 of 2019 andWMP.Nos.35508 & 35510 of 201925.03.20258/8