IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR and WMP.No.2772 of 2020 T.Pooviah Special Grade Agriculture Officer (now dismissed)

57/25-D, Peigopuram 7^th Street Tiruvannamalai 1. ...Petitioner Vs.

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep.by its Agricultural Production Commissioner and Secretary Fort St.George Chennai 9.

2.The Commissioner of Agriculture Chepauk, Chennai 5. 3.The Commissioner Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings Vellore. ...Respondents Prayer: This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the first respondent herein in G.O.(3D) No.78, Agriculture (AAV 8) Department dated 06.04.2011 and the consequential order passed in the review petition by the first respondent in G.O.(3D) No.170 Agriculture (AAV 8) Department on 27.5.2015 and quash the same and consequently direct the first and second respondents herein to confer with all attendant benefits including promotions with due regards to the petitioner’s seniority and allow the petitioner to retire from service on the date on which the petitioner reached the age of superannuation with effect from 30.4.2011.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Vasanth For Respondents : Mrs.S.Anitha for R1 & R2 Special Government Pleader R3-Not ready in notice

ORDER

The petitioner challenges the order dated 06.04.2011 bearing G.O.(3D)

No.78, Agriculture (AAV 8) Department, issued by the first respondent, whereby the punishment of dismissal from service was imposed upon him.

2. While serving as an Agricultural Development Officer, the petitioner was issued a charge memo dated 11.04.2006 alleging that he, along with two other delinquents, had misappropriated a sum of Rs.85,762.50 by creating false records and forging the signatures of several beneficiaries, as if 2,30,000 eucalyptus seedlings valued at Rs.3,45,000/- had been supplied to farmers, whereas only seedlings worth Rs.1,15,650/- were allegedly supplied at a 50% subsidy rate, and the remaining seedlings were not supplied. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 11.04.2006 denying the charges. He participated in the enquiry, and the Enquiry Officer, after recording the statements of 70 beneficiaries, returned a finding that the charges against the petitioner were not proved. The enquiry report was placed before the first respondent. Upon consideration of the report, the first respondent issued a dissenting note dated 11.04.2006 stating that the Subsidy Register revealed corrections made with wrongful intent and that, although the charged officers contended that there were errors in the entries, making incorrect entries in the registers constituted a lapse, and in the present case, the same was done with a profit motive.

3. Based on the dissenting note, the first respondent issued a show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why the dissenting note should not be accepted. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 26.11.2006. Thereafter, the first respondent referred the matter to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for its opinion and, upon receipt of such opinion, passed the impugned order of dismissal.

4. Mr.P.Vasanth, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Enquiry Officer, after conducting a thorough enquiry, had categorically found that the charges were not proved and that the Government ought either to have accepted or rejected the report in accordance with law. Instead, it altered the basis of the charge through a dissenting note and passed the impugned order without properly considering the further explanation submitted by the petitioner. He further contended that the report/opinion of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission was not furnished to the petitioner prior to the passing of the impugned order. Therefore, according to him, the impugned order of punishment is arbitrary, discriminatory and legally unsustainable.

5. In support