IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 14-10-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. SURENDER L.Paulraj Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The Principal Secretary To Government, Revenue (services II)

Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.

2.The Special Commissioner And Commissioner Of Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-5.

3.The District Revenue Officer Cum Enquiry Officer, Villupuram District, Villupuram.

Respondent(s)

PRAYER This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the 1st respondent in connection with the impugned order passed in GO (D) No.645, Revenue (Ser.2(2) Department dated 21.09.2005 and GO(2D) NO.261, Revenue (Ser2(3)

Department dated 27.05.2013 and quash the same.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.Venkataramani Senior Counsel for M/s.M.Muthappan For Respondent(s): Ms.R.L.Karthika GA for R 1 To 3

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed seeking to quash the impugned order passed in G.O (D).No.645, Revenue (Ser.2(2) Department dated 21.09.2005 and GO(2D) No.261, Revenue (Ser2(3) Department dated 27.05.2013.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, L.Paulraj, a retired District Revenue Officer, challenges the Government Order passed in GO (D) No.645, Revenue (Ser.2(2) Department dated 21.09.2005 and GO(2D) NO.261, Revenue (Ser2(3) Department dated 27.05.2013, imposing a punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect. The petitioner was charged with 8 charges, while working as Manager, THADCO, Villupuram. The enquiry officer held charges 1, 3, 6, and 8 as proved, charges 2 and 7 as partly proved, and charges 4 and 5 as not proved. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority disagreed with the enquiry officer’s finding on charge 7, held it as fully proved and imposed the punishment.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the action of the disciplinary authority is flawed as no separate show-cause notice was given before differing with the enquiry officer’s findings and before imposing the punishment. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lav Nigam Vs. Chairman & MD, ITI LTD. And Another, reported in (2006) 9 SCC 440, which mandates two notices: one on the tentative disagreement with the enquiry officer’s findings and another on the proposed punishment. The relevant para of the above said judgment is extracted hereunder:

“9. Challenging the orders of the respondent authorities the appellant filed a Writ Petition before the High Court. The appellant specifically raised the issue that the disciplinary authority was obliged to give a separate show-cause notice if the disciplinary authority differed with the inquiry officer. The High Court also held that there was no need to give two separate show-cause notices one before the disciplinary authority found against the employee while differing with the view of the inquiry officer and another against the proposed punishment. It was further held that the two notices could be combined in one. The Writ Petition was accordingly dismissed.

10. The conclusion of the High Court was contrary tot he consistent view taken by this Court that in case the disciplinary authority differs with the view taken by the inquiry officer, he is bound to give a notice setting out his tentative conclusions to the appellant. It is only after hearing the appellant that the disciplinary authority would at all arrive at a final finding of guilt. Thereafter, the employee would again have to be served with a notice relating to the punishment proposed.

11. In Punjab National Bank Vs. Kunj Behari Misra’s Bench of this Court considered Regulations 7(2) of the Punjab National Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977. The Regulations itself did not provide for the giving of any notice before the disciplinary authority differed with the view of enquiry officer. This Court held: (SCC p.97, para 19)

“The result of the aforesaid discussion would be