BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.02.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA W.A.(MD)No.391 of 2022 and C.M.P.(MD)No.3954 of 2022 Joint Commissioner / Executive Officer, A/M, Meenakshi Sundereswarar Thirukkoil, Madurai – 625 001. ... Appellant/1^st respondent -vs-

1. Thirumathi V.Erangimuthu ... 1^st respondent/petitioner

2. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Chennai, Tamil Nadu.

3. The Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai, Tamil Nadu. ... 2^nd and 3^rd Respondents Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act praying this Court to set aside the order of this Court made in W.P(MD)No.3606 of 2016, dated 17.12.2021.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murali For R1 : Mr.P.Murughadasan For R2 and R3 : Mr.B.Ramanathan Additional Government Pleader

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.)

Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD).No.3606 of 2016 dated 17.12.2021, the present intra-Court appeal is preferred by the Joint Commissioner / Executive Officer, A/M, Meenakshi Sundereswarar Temple.

2. The 1^st respondent herein is the successful petitioner before the learned Single Judge, was appointed as a sweeper under compassionate appointment on 30.03.2013. On 05.06.2015, when counting of Hundi was underway, the 1^st respondent / writ petitioner was found removing coins of various denomination worth Rs.170/- and concealed inside her blouse. This was noticed by the Inspector (HR & CE) Madurai North and the Office Superintendant and immediately the said money was recovered from her. After recording her statement, she was placed under suspension. Charge memo was issued to her to explain why departmental action should not be taken against her for stealing temple money and causing loss and disrespect to the temple. The 1^st respondent / writ petitioner had confessed her guilt and sought for pardoning. The Joint Commissioner / Executive Officer, A/M, Meenakshi Sundereswarar Temple, on completion of enquiry submitted a report holding the 1^st respondent / writ petitioner guilty of all the charges and charges found true. Consequently, the 1^st respondent / writ petitioner was terminated from service vide proceedings dated 18.12.2015. In the termination order, she was informed that she can prefer appeal to the Joint Commissioner / Executive Officer, A/M, Meenakshi Sundereswarar Temple, if she is aggrieved by the order. The 1^st respondent / writ petitioner has chosen to challenge the termination order by filing a writ petition stating that the impugned order dated 18.12.2015 passed without any authority or law.

3. It is contended that the 1^st respondent / writ petitioner is an illiterate women knowing nothing even to count the coins. She was forced to sign in the statement and made a scape goat, contending that there is no CCTV camera evidence to prove her guilt of stealing Hundi money. It is further contended that the respondent who issued the impugned order is not the competent authority to remove her from service. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition by observing that the signature of the 1^st respondent / writ petitioner go to show that she is an illiterate women and she has signed the papers prepared by others without knowing the consequences.

4. Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned Single Judge, the present appeal is filed stating that the learned Single Judge has not applied her mind while appreciating the voluntary admission of the 1^st respondent / writ petitioner and the statements of the officers who had recovered coins of various denomination of worth Rs.170/- concealed inside the blouse of the 1^st respondent / writ petitioner. The enquiry before terminating the 1^st respondent / writ petitioner, an opportunity was given to her to explain the charges. Having chosen not to contest and confe