Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 67494
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.Suresh Kumar, K.Kumaresh Babu, JJ
L.Yasotha – Appellant
Versus
The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep., by the Secretary, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Dept. – Respondent
CMP. SR.Nos.41597 & 41603 of 2024 in W.A.Nos.766 & 767 of 2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.T.Mohan Sr., counsel for Mr.A.Arumugam
For the Respondents: Mr.J.Ravindran AAG, Assisted by Mr.C.Selvaraj AGP for RR1 & R2
The court emphasizes that admissions of guilt in fraudulent practices necessitate disciplinary and criminal action, highlighting the importance of accountability in public service.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 151 - Third party applications - Review of judgments regarding service regularization and conduct of officer accused of forgery - Petitioner, an Executive Officer, sought to review findings against her based on claims of innocence and improper documents - Court found admission of guilt and directed disciplinary action, including criminal complaints against the petitioner for forgery and perjury - The deliberate failure of the Disciplinary Authority to comply with court directions indicates a lack of accountability. (Paras 1-22)
(B) Admission of Guilt - The court emphasized that the petitioner’s admission of forgery rejects her claims of signing without knowledge, demonstrating a clear attempt to mislead the court. (Paras 21)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Town Panchayat Executive Officer, was found responsible for presenting forged documents before the court. A review was sought concerning the findings of fraud and forgery. Attempts to dismiss responsibility were rejected based on her admission of guilt and the court's prior orders.
Findings of Court:
The executive officer's actions constituted serious misconduct, leading to the direction for criminal proceedings for perjury. Disciplinary action was inadequately pursued by her superiors, prompting direct measures from the court.
Issues: The court addressed whether the findings of indiscipline could be modified in light of claims of innocence and the consequences of presenting false evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that mere submission of claims cannot outweigh evidence and admission of wrongdoing; thus, disciplinary and criminal actions were justified in preserving judicial integrity.
Result: CMP.SR.Nos.41597 & 41603 of 2024 dismissed; criminal proceedings initiated for perjury against the petitioner.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's innocence and unblemished service (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court's discovery of discrepancies in documents (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. admission of guilt regarding forgery (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. responses from staff indicate complicity (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. court's view on staff's evasive responses (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. failure to comply with prior court orders (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 7. reiteration of fraudulent activities and perjury (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 8. final orders and proceedings against petitioner (Para 22) |
COMMON ORDER
K.KUMARESH BABU.,J.
A grant to leave to file a third party Review at the instance of the petitioner, who was the Executive Officer of Vennanthur Town Panchayat, Namakkal District is placed on board for hearing today.
2. Mr.T.Mohan, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has an unblemished service. He would con- tend that the petitioner was not responsible for creation of any documents and whatever documents available at the office of the Town Panchayat alone were placed before this Court. He would submit that the petitioner is inno- cent and she had been made to sign the affidavits filed by her during the course of hearing before this Court and therefore, he would seek to review the findings given against her.
3. Mr.J.Ravindran, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the Government would submit that the Government had also filed a review only with respect to regularisation of services of the private respondents. He would further submit that in compliance with the order of this Court, action had been initiated against the petitioner herein and she had also been imposed with the punishment. Against which, the petitioner had also filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the same is pending. He would only request this Court to pass appropriate orders as it deem fit the circumstance of the case.
4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and perused the materials placed on record.
5. When the Writ Appeals were taken up for hearing before this Court, the learned Additional Government Pleader had taken time to file additional documents and recording his statement, the matter was directed to be listed after one week by order of this Court dated 24.07.2023. Thereafter, when the matter was again on board, an additional typed set of documents were filed. When this Court had perused the said documents filed in the form of additional typed set, it had found various discrepencies. This Court further directed the Executive Officer of the Town Panchayat, who is now the petitioner before us, to file an affidavit asserting the genuineness of such documents and also produce the original records pertaining to the minutes recorded by the Town Panchayat during the relevant point of time. On 14.08.2023, when the matter was on board, the petitioner herein had appeared in person before this Court. The learned Special Gov- ernment Pleader admitted certain documents produced before this Court were forged documents and the petitioner, who was present before this Court, had also admitted the guilt, which this Court had also recorded in the order dated 14.08.2023. Hence, this Court had directed the petitioner herein to file an affidavit explaining all such circumstances. For better appreciation, the orders dated 07.08.2023 & 14.08.2023 are extracted hereunder:- 07.08.2023:-
Pursuant to the last order, today when the case is taken up for hearing, on behalf of the appellants Town Panchayat, ad- ditional typed set of documents have been filed. On perusal of those documents, we find in the naked eye that there is a vast difference between the signatures made on behalf of the second appellant Executive Officer.
2.Moreover, these agreements of contract were said to have been signed by the Executive Officer in the year 2008 or 2009 i.e., nearly about 14 years or 15 years back. However, in the name of original they have produced the contract agreement si
