IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 03.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

A.Raja ... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu,

Represented by its Secretary,

Finance Department,

Secretariat,

Chennai-600 009.

2.The Principal Secretary to Government,

Finance Department,

Secretariat, Fort St.George,

Chennai-600 009.

3.Commissioner of Treasuries and Accounts,

Amma Campus, 3rd Floor,

Integrated Office Building for Finance Department,

No.571, Anna Salai, Nandanam,

Chennai-600 035.

....Respondents

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the order bearing Na.Ka.No.29982/Q2/2018-4 dated 06.04.2022 passed by the third respondent Commissioner of Treasuries and

Accounts, Chennai, as confirmed by the order bearing G.O(2 pa.)No.61 dated 08.09.2023 passed by the second respondent Principal Secretary to Government, Finance Department and quash the same and direct the respondent Authorities to pay the withheld increments for one year with cumulative effect along with the consequential benefits to the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Mahimai Raj For Respondents : Mr.P.Ganesan Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order bearing Na.Ka.No.29982/Q2/2018-4 dated 06.04.2022 passed by the third respondent, namely, Commissioner of Treasuries and Accounts, Chennai, as confirmed by the order bearing G.O(2 pa.)No.61 dated 08.09.2023 passed by the second respondent, namely, Principal Secretary to Government, Finance Department and for a consequential direction to the respondents to pay the withheld increments for one year with cumulative effect along with the consequential benefits to the petitioner.

2. The petitioner, while working as the Superintendent/Sub Treasury Officer, Bavani, was issued with a charge memo for the dereliction of duty resulting in loss to the exchequer. On enquiry, charges framed were proved and he was inflicted with the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, namely, the Principal Secretary to Government. Pending appeal, the Appellate Authority sought for advice only from Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, the copy of which was provided to the petitioner only after the order was passed by the Appellate Authority. Claiming that the Disciplinary Authority, namely, the third respondent did not consult with the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission at the first instance before making any order imposing penalty upon the petitioner under Rule 17(b)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules that only after a delay of more than one year and three months, the second respondent, namely, the Appellate Authority confirmed the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner preferred the writ petition seeking to quash the order passed by the second and third respondents and to direct the respondents to pay the withheld increments for one year with cumulative effect along with consequential benefits.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the respondents filed a counter affidavit denying the averments made by the petitioner stating that there was embezzlement of Government money by sending fictitious pension payments to the Bank. In this regard, charges were framed against six employees of Sub Treasury including the petitioner. Based on the findings of the enquiry report, the punishment of postponement of increment for one year with cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner. Subsequently, the appeal filed by the petitioner to the first respondent was also dismissed confirming the conditions imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. It is stated that the petitioner being the responsible officer, did not follow the instructions properly and has not protected his login cre