IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 09.12.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR C.Tamil Selvi Deputy Tahsildar (Land Acquisition)

(retired from service)

No.818, Mariamman Koil Street Kunjukuppam Village Kadampuliyur, Panroti Taluk Cuddalore District. ... Petitioner vs.

1. The Secretary to Government Revenue Department Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

2. The Additional Chief Secretary Commissioner of Revenue Administration Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

3. The Collector Cuddalore District. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records connected with the proceedings issued in Proc.No.Ser.3(1)/35653/2013 dated 04.08.2014 (received on 24.09.2014) passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to disburse the pensionary benefits admissible to the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Ranganathan For Respondents : Mr.V.Nanmaran Additional Government Pleader *****

O R D E R

The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated

04.08.2014 bearing Proceedings No. Ser.3(1)/35653/2013 passed by the second respondent. By the said order, the punishment of fine equivalent to stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect imposed on the petitioner was modified to the extent that the stoppage of increment would operate up to the date of her retirement, i.e., 30.06.2014.

2. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Deputy Tahsildar and, while so, she was issued with a charge memo. The charge memo reads as follows:

“Charge No.1:

While working as Revenue Inspector, Kadampuliyur, Panruti Taluk the delinquent official failed to check the beneficiaries list of crop damages relief prepared by the V.A.O. Keelampattu during November 2005 floods.

Charge No.2:

Paved way for loss of Government money by recommending excess amount over and above the extent of land held by the beneficiaries. Charge No.3:

Violated Section of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules by failing in her duties and responsibilities.”

3. The explanation submitted by the petitioner was found to be unsatisfactory. Thereafter, a departmental enquiry was initiated, and the Enquiry Officer, after concluding the enquiry, submitted a report holding that the charges against the petitioner stood proved. The petitioner submitted her explanation to the second show cause notice and the Disciplinary Authority, after considering the enquiry report and the petitioner’s explanation, passed an order imposing the punishment of fine equivalent to stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect, vide order dated 01.04.2013. The order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority was assailed before the second respondent by way of an appeal. The second respondent initially confirmed the very same order, which was thereafter challenged before the Government/first respondent by filing a revision petition. The first respondent, vide order dated 25.07.2014, set aside the said order and remitted the matter to the second respondent for reconsideration afresh. Therefore, the impugned order has been passed.

4. Mr. T. Ranganathan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the allegations against the petitioner pertain to the year 2005, when she was working as a Revenue Inspector, and except for the allegation that she failed to verify the applications submitted by the farmers claiming compensation on account of crop damage, there is no other allegation. In the absence of any statutory duty cast upon the petitioner to verify the said applications, and inasmuch as the applications had been approved and sanctioned by the Assistant Agricultural Officer, there is no material to substantiate that there was any dereliction of duty on her part. Therefore, the impugned order of punishment imposed by the second respondent is arbitrary and discriminatory.

5. In response, Mr. V. Nanmaran, learned Additional Go