Notings recorded in the file by the officers of the Government do not become decisions of the Government unless sanctified and acted upon by issuing an order in the name of the President or Governor, and communicated to the affected persons. Inter-departmental communications and notings do not have the sanction of law, creating a legally enforceable right.

1. Whether a noting made by a Government employee in the official file indicating his opinion can be the basis for initiating disciplinary proceedings against him, is the core issue that arises for consideration in the present writ petition. The brief facts:

2. The petitioner was functioning as Sub Inspector of Survey attached to the Taluk Office of Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk. While so, he was placed under suspension on 19 August 2005 pending initiation of disciplinary proceedings. This was followed by a charge memo dated 15 March 2006 issued by the Secretary to Government containing as many as two charges. The first charge alleged that the petitioner has put up a misleading note by calling for records from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to ascertain as to whether the land was actually acquired by the Board, which according to the department was mischievous and highhanded, in view of the fact that the land has already been acquired for the Board. The second charge relates to issuance of patta on account of the said note.

3. The petitioner in his explanation to the charge memo justified the action taken by him to call for a report from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The disciplinary authority appointed an enquiry officer. The enquiry officer conducted a detailed enquiry and submitted a report exonerating the petitioner from the charges. The report was not accepted by the disciplinary authority resulting in issuing a notice to the petitioner as to why the charges should not be treated as "proved". The petitioner, submitted a response to the notice. The disciplinary authority was not prepared to accept the explanation and ultimately passed an order imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of five years with cumulative effect. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. The Deputy Secretary to Government, Revenue Department filed a detailed counter affidavit justifying the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. According to the first respondent, the land in question has already been acquired by the Government for Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Therefore, the petitioner should have made a specific noting that the property belongs to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Since the petitioner raised an unnecessary query, it resulted in issuing patta in favour of certain private individuals. The first respondent maintained that the petitioner has made a misleading note and that was the cause for granting patta.

Rival contentions:

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was only a Sub Inspector of Survey and he was no way responsible for issuing the patta. When the application was given, the original revenue records were not before him. Therefore, with a view to protect the interest of the Government, the petitioner made a note indicating that the Housing Board should be addressed to ascertain as to whether the Board has acquired the land. There is nothing wrong in making such an endorsement. The learned counsel further contended that the patta in question was issued only by the Tahsildar. However, no action was taken against the Tahsildar. The learned counsel submitted that the enquiry officer reported that the charges were not proved. However, very strangely, without indicating any dissenting view, the first respondent has disagreed with the findings and punished the petitioner. Therefore, the order is liable to be quashed.

6. The learned Additional Government Pleader justified the order passed by the disciplinary authority. According to the learned Additional Government Pleader, when it is made out that the property absolutely belongs to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, the petitioner has no business to call for a report from the Housing Board. The learned Government Pleader further contended that the petitioner in collusion with the other revenue officials issued patta in favour of certain private individuals and that was the reaso