Mandatory compliance with disciplinary procedural rules is a prerequisite for imposing major penalties. Statutory provisions governing service conditions explicitly bar promotion during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings, and this bar remains effective until the conclusion of the case and subsequent exoneration or acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

M. JOTHIRAMAN, J.

1. Under assail is the order passed in WP.(MD)No.14623 of 2020 dated 16.06.2023. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their ranking in WA.(MD)No.670 of 2024.

2. Originally the appellant has challenged the order passed by the first respondent vide G.O.(Pa)No.64 Tourism Culture and Religious Endowments Department, dated 06.06.2020 confirming the impugned proceedings of the second respondent dated 20.07.2017 and quash the same and to direct the officials to restore the original seniority and post of the writ petitioner conferring all the promotional, monetary benefits including the back wages on par with his Seniority.

3. According to the Appellant, while he was working as Executive Officer Grade II in Arulmigu Soundhararaja Perumal Temple, Thadicombu, Dindigul District from 11.09.2012 to 21.06.2015 for the Fasli year 1421 to 1424. Consequently, he was issued with charge memo under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules comprising of 6 charges vide proceedings dated 25.01.2016. Enquiry was conducted and it was held that out of 6 charges, charges 1 to 4 and 6 were proved, 5th charge was not proved. The second respondent vide impugned proceedings dated 25.03.2019, imposed punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect for 2 years as and when it falls due. He filed statutory appeal on time. However, after a lapse of about 3 years, the first respondent dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant. Challenging the same, the appellant preferred the writ petition.

4. The learned Writ Court allowed the writ petition in the following terms:-

“4. Since the statutory procedure was not adopted before levying major penalty, the order impugned in the writ petition is quashed. The matter is remitted to the file of the second respondent. It is open to the second respondent to take recourse the major penalty procedure imposed against the petitioner. If the second respondent decides to resume disciplinary action, its pendency will not come in the way of the petitioner from being considered for promotion.”

Aggrieved over the findings of the learned Writ Court that the pendency of disciplinary action will not come in the way of the appellant from being considered for promotion, the respondents have preferred the writ appeal in WA.(MD)No.17 of 2025. Similarly, aggrieved over the findings of the learned Writ Court that matter is remitted back to the file of the second respondent to conduct enquiry, the appellant has preferred the writ appeal in WA.(MD)No.670 of 2024.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the learned Writ Court erred in remanding back the matter without taking into consideration of the gravity of the charges and apparent predetermined conduct on the part of the respondents in imposing major punishment. The learned Writ Court failed to appreciate the inordinate delay and laches on the part of the respondents in initiating disciplinary proceedings against the appellant. The learned Writ Court failed to note that the allegation of misappropriation (Charge No. 5) was held not proved and that it was never the case of the respondents that the appellant had acquired disproportionate assets by circumventing the prescribed procedure. Even assuming procedural violations, disciplinary action under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules for imposing a major punishment is impermissible in view of the Circular dated 02.02.2017. The findings relating to the alleged violations of Rules 7(1)(a), 7(1)(b)(i) and 7(1