High Court · 2025

WA(MD)No.985 of 2020 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 13.08.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHANAND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKARWA(MD)No.985 of 2020andCMP(MD)No.5334 of 20201.The Additional Chief Secretary and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.2.The District Collector, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.3.The Treasury Officer, Thoothukudi. ... Appellants / Respondents Vs.1.K.Rajendran (died) ... Respondent/Petitioner 2.R.Krishnaveni...2nd respondent(R2 impleaded vide order dated 13.08.2025 in CMP(MD)No.6929 of 2021)1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA(MD)No.985 of 2020PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying this Court to set aside the order dated 31.10.2019 made in WP(MD)No.11910 of 2014. For Appellants : Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam Government Advocate For Respondent : Mr.S.Viswalingam JUDGMENT(By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)Heard both sides.2.The department has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 03.10.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing WP(MD)No.11910 of 2014 filed by the writ petitioner K.Rajendran. He was working as Deputy Tahsildar. He was issued with a charge memo on 21.12.2005. He reached the age of superannuation on 30.11.2007. On the same day, the District Collector, Thoothukudi issued proceedings allowing him to retire without prejudice to the disciplinary action initiated against him. Prior to his retirement, vide proceedings dated 19.11.2007, the District Collector, Thoothukudi imposed the punishment of reduction of pay by one stage. Aggrieved by the same, he filed an appeal before the 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA(MD)No.985 of 2020Commissioner of Revenue Administration. The appellate authority vide proceedings dated 19.02.2010 set aside the order of the District Collector passed on 19.11.2007. The matter was remitted to the file of the District Collector and liberty was given to proceed from the stage from where defect crept in. Since the writ petitioner had already retired from service, it is only the Government that was competent to take action. The government vide letter dated 05.03.2013 called upon the writ petitioner to offer his reply to the proposed punishment of cut in pension of Rs.500 per month for a period of three years. The writ petitioner offered his reply. Challenging the same, K.Rajendran filed WP(MD)No.9953 of 2013 to conclude the disciplinary proceedings. The writ petition was disposed of on 21.06.2013 and the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department was directed to pass to pass orders on the disciplinary proceedings. Strangely, it was not the Government but the Commissioner of Revenue Administration who vide proceedings dated 29.04.2014 imposed the punishment of cut in pension of Rs.500 per month for a period of three years. The said order was challenged in WP(MD)No.11910 of 2014. The writ petition was allowed vide order dated 03.10.2019 by the learned Single Judge in the following terms : 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA(MD)No.985 of 2020“7.Though the learned Counsel for the respondents try to persuade this Court that the order passed by the first respondent was in continuation of earlier proceedings, this Court is unable to accept the said contention. For convenience, Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, is extracted below: “9.Right of Government to withhold or withdraw pension- (2)(b)(ii)Shall not be in respect of any event, which took place more than four years before such institution;” 8.The earlier punishment was not enforceable, as the punishment was imposed, just few days prior to the retirement, when no increment was due. It is in the said circumstances, the first respondent had no option, but to set aside the punishment. However, the remand order cannot be interpreted to give fresh life to the proceedings to pass appropriate orders. A fresh order of punishment can be passed, only if it could be made well before the time, as contemplated under Rule 9(2)(b) of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.9.The District Collector has passed an elaborate order earlier and held that the earlier punishment cannot be validated and that he had no other option, but to pass an order cancelling the order of punishment. However, in utter disregard to the order passed by the first respondent earlier and contrary to the provisions of Rule 9(2)(b) of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, the impugned order has been passed by the first respondent inflicting the punishment of recovery of a sum of Rs.500/- per month for a period of three years. 11.The second order imposing the punishment beyond the period of four years from the date of delinquency is contrary to Rule 9(2)(b) of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, and the earlier order of District Collector would clearly show that the second respondent had 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA(MD)No.985 of 2020acknowledged the fact that no punishment can be imposed as against the petitioner, after the earlier punishment was set aside by the first respondent. It appears that due to communication gap, independent proceedings has been initiated by the first respondent once again, which is without authority and contrary to Rule 9(2)(b) of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. 12.In view of the discussion above, this Court is inclined to allow this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the first respondent, dated 29.04.2014 is set aside. 3.We are satisfied that the learned Single Judge proceeded on a misconception of facts. The learned Single Judge invoked Rule 9(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 to hold that the impugned order was passed without jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge was under the impression that further proceedings had been initiated under Tamil Nadu Pension Rules in respect of an event that had taken place prior to four years. In fact, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are a continuation of the proceedings that were initiated in the year 2005. We also notice that the Commissioner of Revenue Administration has given a solid reason as to why instead of the Government, he had passed the order. Paragraph No.6 of the impugned order reads as follows :“,e;epiyapy;> ghh;it 3y; fhZk; murpd; 21.02.2014 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA(MD)No.985 of 2020ehspl;l muRf; fbjj;jpy; murhiz (gy;tif) vz;.349> epjp (Xa;T+jpak;)j;Jiw> ehs; 12.08.2013y; jkpo;ehL Xa;T+jpa tpjpfs; gphpT 9(2)y; Xa;T ngw;w muR Copah;fs; kPJ Xa;T+jpa tpjpfspd; fPo; ,Wjpahizapid Jiwj;jiytNu gpwg;gpf;fyhk; vdj; jpUj;jk; nra;ag;gl;lijaLj;J> Nkw;gb jdpah; kPJ jkpo;ehL Xa;T+jpa tpjpfspd; fPo; ,Wjpahiz gpwg;gpf;FkhW njhptpj;J njhlh;Gila Mtzq;fs; ,t;tYtyfj;jpw;F murplkpUe;J jpUg;gp tug;ngw;Ws;sd.”But then, when this Court had directed the Secretary to Government to pass orders, the Commissioner of Revenue Administration ought not to have passed the impugned order. It is in this view of the matter, we hold that even though the Commissioner of Revenue Administration had jurisdiction over the delinquent, still, since it is not in consonance with the earlier order dated 21.06.2013 made in WP(MD)No.9953 of 2013. Even while faulting the order impugned in the writ petition, we direct the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department to pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 4.This writ appeal is disposed of. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA(MD)No.985 of 2020(G.R.S., J.) & (K.R.S., J.) 13.08.2025SKMTo1.The Additional Chief Secretary and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.2.The District Collector, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.3.The Treasury Officer, Thoothukudi.7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA(MD)No.985 of 2020G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.ANDK.RAJASEKAR, J. SKMWA(MD)No.985 of 2020andCMP(MD)No.5334 of 20208/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA(MD)No.985 of 202013.08.20259/9