W.A.No. 2949 of 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 31.03.2023

Coram

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR

AND

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI

W.A.No. 2949 of 2019

and

CMP.Nos. 19167 of 2019 and 9361 of 2021

1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by its

The Principal Secretary to the Government

Tourism, Culture and Religious,

Endowments Department,

Fort St.George, Chennai-600009.

2.The Principal Secretary/Commissioner

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments

Department, College Road,

Nungambakkam, Chennai -600034.

..Appellants.

Vs

1.N.Dhanapal

2.Additional Commissioner (Enquiry)

O/o. The Commissioner

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,

No. 119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai,

Nungambakkam, Chennai-600034.

..Respondents

Prayer : Writ Appeal has been filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to

set aside the order dated 26.06.2018 made in W.P.No. 44110 of 2016.

For Appellants

:

Mr.R.Shanmugasundaram, AG

Assisted by

Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan – Spl.GP

1/20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No. 2949 of 2019

For respondents

:

Mr. R.Singaravelan, Senior Counsel

For

Mr.A. Palaniappan – R1

No appearance – R2

JUDGMENT

[Judgement of the Court was made by D.KRISHNAKUMAR,J.]

Challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.

44110 of 2016, dated 26.06.2018, the instant writ appeal has been preferred

by the appellant /department.

Brief facts :

2.1 The 2^nd appellant/Commissioner, HR&CE, Chennai framed charges

(9 in numbers) under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Servants (Discipline

and Appeal) Rules against the 1^st respondent/writ petitioner and issued

charge memo in Na.ka.No. 23785/2013/B1, dated 13.06.2013 for violation

of Rules and proceeded with departmental enquriy. Pending aforesaid

departmental enquriy, the 1^st respondent was placed under suspension vide

G.O. No.(D) 71, dated 05.07.2013. Subsequently, additional charge memo ,

framing additional charges (4 in numbers) against the 1^st respondent/writ

petitioner came to be issued by the 2^nd

appellant in

Na.Ka.No.23785/2013/B1, dated 07.10.2013. The 1^st appellant/Government

2/20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No. 2949 of 2019

vide G.O.(D) No.140, dated 16.09.2015 has appointed an enquiry officer to

enquire into the charges framed against the 1^st respondent.

2.2. The 1^st respondent/writ petitioner has filed a writ petition in

W.P.No. 23023 of 2014 and W.P.No. 28937 of 2014, challenging the charge

memo and appointment of the enquiry officer. Those writ petitions came

to be disposed of by order dated 16.10.2015 based on the undertaking given

by the respondent that they will follow the principles of natural justice and

procedure as contemplated under the Rules.

2.3 Pursuant to the aforesaid order of this Court, an enquiry officer

has been appointed by the Government in G.O.(D) No. 150, dated

07.10.2015. The enquiry officer has conducted enquiry and based on the

statements of the executive officer and other documents, the enquiry

officer found that the charges framed against the writ petitioner are proved

and the said enquiry report dated 20.02.2016 has been submitted to the 1^st

appellant therein. On receipt of the said enquiry report, the 1^st appellant

has issued show cause notice 25.11.2016, which was under challenge in W.P.

No. 44110 of 2016. After hearing the submissions made by the parties

concerned, the learned Single Judge allowed the said writ petition on the

ground that the appellant-department did not follow the procedures and

3/20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No. 2949 of 2019

not furnished copies of documents to the writ petitioner as per rules.

Challenging the said order of the learned Single Judge, the intra court

appeal has been preferred by the appellant-department.

3. The learned Advocate General appearing for the appellants would

submit that the learned Single Judge has gone into entire charges and

fi