Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 56434
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.DHANDAPANI, J
S.Ravikumar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
W.P.(MD) No.18766 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.H.Mohammed Imran for M/s.Ajmal Associates
For the Respondents: Mr.S.R.A.Ramachandhran Additional Government Pleader
Disciplinary proceedings require adherence to procedural fairness, including providing adequate notice and opportunity before imposing penalties.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Disciplinary proceedings - Challenge to order of punishment imposed without giving reasonable opportunity of hearing - First respondent invoked suo motu review without notice - Procedure followed is impermissible according to the rules - Order of punishment set aside. (Paras 4, 12, 13)
(B) Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 - Rule 36 - Revision powers during pendency of appeal should not be invoked - Appellate authority's actions conflicted with procedural requirements. (Paras 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged a disciplinary punishment imposed during his tenure as Tahsildar for a revenue record mutation, which he argued was substantiated under the Patta Passbook Act. The disciplinary action followed a complaint amidst ongoing civil litigation.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the procedure for imposing the punishment was inadequate and improper in the context of existing rules.
Issues: The key issues addressed included the lack of proper notice and opportunity afforded to the petitioner before imposing punishment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the appellate authority's actions were nullified due to non-compliance with required processes and the disciplinary procedure was flawed.
Result: The orders of punishment were set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of disciplinary charges against the petitioner. (Para 2) |
| 2. arguments presented by the petitioner and respondents regarding procedural issues. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's observation on the legitimacy of the actions taken during disciplinary proceedings. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. clarification of procedural rules and the limitations of authority in disciplinary contexts. (Para 11 , 12) |
ORDER
The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the third respondent vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.A6/32281/2014 dated 10.07.2023 and the consequential impugned order passed by the first respondent vide proceedings in G.O.(2Pa)No. 338, Revenue and Disaster Management [Pani4(1)] Department dated
29.05.2025.
2.The petitioner herein was initially appointed as Revenue Assistant on 26.07.2004. Thereafter, he was promoted as Deputy Tahsildar on 01.07.2011 and then Tahsildar on 04.07.2015. Further on 15.05.2025, the petitioner was appointed as Personal Assistant to District Supply Officer. While so, the petitioner was issued with a charge memo dated 02.06.2020 alleging that while he was serving as Tahsildar, in respect of Survey No.1748/1, Vadakku Valliyoor Village, Tirunelveli, the petitioner has mutated the patta by making sub division in favour of some other person, who is not entitled for the same along with other two incidental charges. In response to the same, the petitioner has given a detailed explanation and the Enquiry Officer submitted a report stating that the first charge is proved and the other charges are not proved. 3.Even though, the enquiry was completed, no action was taken to conclude the disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, the petitioner filed W.P.(MD)No.7037 of 2023 and this Court by an order dated 29.03.2023 disposed the said writ petition with a direction to pass final orders within a period of eight weeks. The third respondent, in pursuant to the said direction, has issued the proceedings dated 10.07.2023 imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the second respondent. During the pendency of the appeal, the case files were forwarded to the first respondent, who in turn has passed an order stating that the order dated 10.07.2023 was not issued by the competent authority and the first respondent took suo-motu revision under Rule 36 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 by setting aside the order of the original authority and issued the punishment of stoppage of one year increment with cumulative effect. Challenging the said order of punishment issued by the original authority as well as the first respondent, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment, no reasonable opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. The petitioner has mutated the patta as per the Revenue Standing Orders. Further, while invoking the power of suo motu review and passing orders as against the petitioner, the first respondent has also not issued any notice to the petitioner. If at all the first respondent arrived at a conclusion that the original authority has no jurisdiction to impose punishment, it is the duty caste upon the first respondent to remand the matter back to the original authority. Instead, he suo motu usurped the powers of the original authority and imposed punishment, which is not sustainable one. Hence, he seeks appropriate orders.
5.Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that after receiving complaint as against the petitioner, enquiry officer was appointed and notice was issued by the enquiry officer to the petitioner. The petitioner has also submitted his explanation for the said notice stating that the field inspection was conducted by his subordinates and the re
