Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

R.Kannadasan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

Home
Madras HC
2023
R.Kannadasan Vs The State of Tamil NaduR.Kannadasan v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Allowed

R.Kannadasan v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC1 Jun 2023WP/33815/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court allowed a writ petition challenging a dismissal from service order. The respondent authorities failed to provide the petitioner with an enquiry report and a personal hearing during appeal, resulting in a violation of natural justice.

What did the court decide?

Impugned proceedings dated 03.01.2010, 26.06.2014, and 18.06.2015 are quashed; petitioner notionally reinstated with continuity of service but without backwages.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned proceedings dated 03.01.2010, 26.06.2014, and 18.06.2015 are quashed; petitioner notionally reinstated with continuity of service but without backwages.

Issue for consideration

Whether the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in violation of principles of natural justice due to non-service of enquiry report. +1 more

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Where an enquiry report was not served to a government employee before calling for explanation, and the appellate authority confirmed dismissal without holding a personal hearing, the impugned orders were set aside for violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner was notionally reinstated without back wages.

A compact analysis

This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.

A

W.P.No.33815 of 2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Orders reserved on 10.04.2023

Orders delivered on 01.06.2023

CORAM :

THE HON'BLE Mrs.Justice J.NISHA BANU

W.P.No.33815 of 2015

R.Kannadasan

..Petitioner

Vs

The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Principal Secretary to Government,

Revenue Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George,

Chennai – 600 005.

The Principal Secretary/ Commissioner of Revenue Administration, (Diaster Management & Redressal),

Chepauk,

Chennai – 600 005.

The District Collector, Villupuram District, Villupuram.

The Commissioner of Disciplinary Proceedings, Vellore, Vellore District -632 001.

..Respondents

_____________ Page 1 of 21_

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.33815 of 2015

PRAYER:

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the 2^nd respondent in Se.Mu.No.Pani5(2)/16050/2008 dated 03.01.2010 and the impugned proceedings issued by the 1^st respondent in G.O.(2D).No.507 Revenue Department dated 26.06.2014 and the subsequent proceedings issued by the 1^st respondent in G.O.(2D).No.364 Revenue Department dated 18.06.2015 and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential and other attendant benefits.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan For Respondents : Mr.M.Rajendran, Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R3

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 03.01.2010, passed by the 2^nd respondent, imposing the punishment of dismissal from service and the order dated 26.06.2014 passed by the 1^st respondent, rejecting the petitioner's appeal by confirming the order of dismissal from service and the subsequent proceedings dated 18.06.2015, passed by the 1^st respondent, rejecting the review petition filed by the

Page 2 of 21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.33815 of 2015

petitioner and consequently, direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential and other attendant benefits.

The brief facts of the case of the petitioner is as follows:

i) The petitioner was initially appointed as Village Administrative Officer on 24.04.1994 in the Revenue Department in the erstwhile South Arcot District. Thereafter, he was transferred to Ogaiyur Village in Kallakurichi Taluk, Villupuram District, in the year 2002 and worked there till 2004 and thereafter, transferred to Siruvalari Village, Villupuram District.

ii) While so, in the year 2006, three charges were framed against him by the 4^th respondent Commissioner for Disciplinary Proceedings, Vellore in D.T.P.No.13 of 2005 dated 07.03.2006, viz., (i) While working as VAO in Ogaiyur Village, Kallakurichi Taluk, demanded Rs.650/- from one Annamalai for processing the application for transfer of patta in January 2004, (ii) demanded a sum of Rs.300/- from one Raja Udaiyar on 27.02.2004 for issuing Chitta and Adangal extract FMB sketch etc., for the purpose of submitting the same for obtaining EB service connection and (iii)

_____________ Page 3 of 21_

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.33815 of 2015

demanded a sum of Rs.2000/- on 21.02.2004 from one Chellamuthu for issuing Chitta, Adangal extract, FMB for the lands.

iii) Though charge memo was issued, the petitioner was not provided with any opportunity to offer any explanation. Thereafter, show cause notice dated 28.10.2008 was issued to offer the petitioner's explanation on the findings of the report submitted by the 4^th respondent but the copy of the enquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner. The petitioner made representation on 15.11.2008 to the 2^nd respondent to furnish copy of enquiry report, but there was no response. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 27.11.2008. Since the copy of the enquiry report was not furnished, the petitioner was not able to submit his explanation based on the findings of the Enquiry Officer and statement of witnesses etc. The petitioner was able to answer only for the charges as stated in the show cause notice.

iv) Subsequently, final order was passed on 03.01.2010 holding the charges 1 and 3 as proved and imposed with punishment of dismissal from service and the same was served on the petitioner on 26.01.2010. Against

_____________ Page 4 of 21_

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.33815 of 2015

which, the petitioner filed W.P.No.5584 of 2010. The petitioner also filed an Appeal before the 1^st respondent, challenging the order of 2^nd respondent dated 03.01.2010. The writ petition came to be ordered on 25.11.2013 directing the Appellate Authority, viz., the 1^st respondent to dispose of the appeal dated 18.03.2010 within a period of eight weeks.

v) The petitioner submitted further representation to the 1^st respondent in person on 05.12.2013. However, the 1^st respondent did not call for any personal hearing, but passed an order dated 26.06.2014, rejecting the petitioner's appeal, confirming the order of dismissal from service, by referring to the opinion obtained from TNPSC dated 14.02.2014, but the copy of the opinion of TNPSC was not furnished to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted further representation to the 1^st respondent stating that the order of appeal came to be issued without perusal of records and without appreciating the real facts based on records and further, the copy of the proceedings issued by TNPSC was not furnished to him as well as the copy of the enquiry report issued by Commissioner for Disciplinary Proceedings Vellore, was not furnished to him and thereby, requested the 1^st respondent

_____________ Page 5 of 21_

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.33815 of 2015

to review the order passed in the appeal dated 26.60.2014. But the 1^st respondent rejected the review petition filed by the petitioner without considering the request of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition.

i) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the charge memo was issued by the 4^th respondent dated 07.03.2006, the petitioner was not given any opportunity to offer any explanation. He was straight away summoned to appear for enquiry before the 4^th respondent. The prosecution witnesses alone were examined and statements were obtained and the petitioner was not examined and he was not given any opportunity to defend himself.

ii) Learned counsel would further submit that when the petitioner was working at Ogaiyur Village as VAO, one Annamalai, S/o Ayyadurai, made an application for transfer of patta to avail electricity service connection for agricultural purposes and the petitioner has made statement before Tahsildhar that he is not eligible to get separate patta as there are other joint owners inasmuch as the land belong to Pajanai Madam Kovil. The said

_____________ Page 6 of 21_

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.33815 of 2015

Annamalai took all efforts to get a separate patta, but it was not legally possible. The petitioner has discharged his official duty in accordance with law to his conscience, without any deviation. Further, when one Chellamuthu, S/o Nagamuthu, made an application for transfer of electricity pump connection in his favour consequent to the demise of his father, the petitioner called upon him to obtain Death Certificate and Legalheir Certificate from Thasildhar. At the time of granting of legal heir certificate, the said claimant was asked for appearance of his mother, brother and sisters and he refused to bring them. However, as per the procedure, the personal appearance of family members were insisted and the statements were obtained from all other legal heirs and enquiry was also conducted with personal appearance of legal heirs and thereafter, the certificate was issued. The petitioner had carried out his official duty as per the procedure, but Chellamuthu was dissatisfied with the above action.

iii) Learned counsel would further submit that it is found that Annamalai and Chellamuthu along with another seems to have filed false complaints against the petitioner before the Vigilance & Anti Corruption

_____________ Page 7 of 21_

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.33815 of 2015

Department as if he demanded money. Based on which, the 3rd respondent passed an order of transfer, transferring the petitioner for Kallakurichi Taluk to Villupuramm Taluk. Thus, the charges are ill-motivated based on the false complaint made by the two individuals.

iv) Learned counsel would further submit that along with the show cause notice, copy of the enquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner. Non-furnishing of enquiry report can be evident from the fact that when the show cause notice was served through the office of Thasildhar, Kallakurichi, his signature was obtained only at the bottom of show cause notice and he was not served with any enquiry report as well as statement of witnesses examined and other documents produced at the time of enquiry. Though the petitioner made representation on 15.11.2008 to the 2^nd respondent requesting to furnish copy of the enquiry report, there was no response. Since the petitioner was given only 30 days time to offer his explanation, he submitted his explanation stating that the charges are framed based on false complaint and he cannot be held responsible for the alleged charges.

v) Learned counsel would further submit that after the final order was

_____________ Page 8 of 21_

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.33815 of 2015

passed imposing the punishment of dismissal from service, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 1^st respondent challenging the order of the 2nd respondent dated 03.01.2010, but the same was rejected vide G.O.(2D).No.507 dated 26.06.2014, confirming the order of dismissal from service passed by the 2^nd respondent, by referring the opinion obtained from TNPSC dated 14.02.2014. Again, the copy of the said opinion of TNPSC was not furnished to the petitioner along with the said G.O. which is the basis for passing the order dated 26.06.2014 by the 1^st respondent. The order came to be issued without providing any opportunity of hearing.

vi) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the enquiry was conducted by the 4^th respondent in a farce manner without providing any reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and the petitioner was not even examined during the enquiry. That apart, the petitioner was not provided with any opportunity to adduce his evidence or to produce witnesses on his behalf. Therefore, the enquiry was conducted in the manner not known to law and the same is vitiated.

vii) Learned counsel would further submit that the 2^nd respondent has

_____________ Page 9 of 21_

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.33815 of 2015

not considered that the complainants, Annamalai and Chellamuthu, have given false complaint, since the petitioner has not yielded to the pressure of complainants and acted in a fair manner in dealing with their applications. The Thasildhar is the competent authority to issue patta as well as legal Heirship Certificate and the petitioner, being a VAO, has to make statement before Thasildhar on the applications based on records. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the petitioner can be connected with the allegations. Further, there is no evidence to state that the petitioner has received money from the complainants except the statement of complainants that they have given money to the petitioner. Even the said statement found to be false since it is alleged that Raja Udayar had handed over the money to the petitioner whereas the Raja Udayar has denied any such incident. Therefore, the charges are stated to be proved merely based on the statement of complainants without any proper verification of records and circumstances.

i) Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing

for the respondents would submit that charge Nos.1 and 3 have been proved

_____________ Page 10 of 21_

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.33815 of 2015

by the prosecution witnesses 1 and 2 viz., Annamalai and Chellamuthu, who have confirmed that the petitioner has demanded and accepted bribe amount from them for issuing certificate to get Electricity service connection and recommending patta transfer and charge No.2 was not proved.

ii) Learned Additional Government Pleader would further submit that it is false to state that the petitioner was not provided with any opportunity to offer his explanation. A detailed enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was given opportunity to present his case and he filed written arguments and also made oral presentation. He was allowed to cross examine the official witnesses. The Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, has conducted the enquiry only in a free and fair manner as evident from the report of the Tribunal for Disciplinary proceedings. Further, charges 1 and 3 are held as proved based on circumstantial evidence. The explanation of the petitioner that the evidence of official witnesses is false, cannot be accepted, since the petitioner has not proved that there exists enmity between the petitioner and the official witnesses. The findings of the Tribunal that charge No.1 as proved, is therefore accepted. Regarding charge No.3, Chellamuthu was

_____________ Page 11 of 21_

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.33815 of 2015

given deposition that the petitioner has demanded and accepted illegal gratification. Further, on cross examination also, Chellamuthu denied the statement of the petitioner that he has not demanded any illegal gratification and confirmed that the petitioner has demanded illegal gratification. Further, the official witness-1 Annamalai also confirmed that the petitioner has received the bribe amount.

iii) Learned Additional Government Pleader would further submit that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the official witness 2 and his mother, sister and brother were called to the office to sign in person for issuing legal heir certificate was misconstrued for demanding money and a false compliant was given, cannot be accepted, since the official witness-2 has deposed that the petitioner demanded money for issuing copy of Chitta, Adandal and Field Measurement book and not for the legal heir certificate. The finding of the tribunal that the 3^rd charge as proved is accepted. Further, the report of the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings was communicated to the petitioner on 28.10.2008 and he has submitted his explanation on 27.11.2008. Therefore, the argument that the petitioner has

_____________ Page 12 of 21_

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.33815 of 2015

not received the copy of the findings is not tenable.

iv) Learned Additional Government Pleader would further submit that

both the counsels for the petitioner and the prosecution had filed the written arguments and the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings has also heard the petitioner. Thus, the Tribunal has conducted the enquiry in a proper manner. Every necessary records were furnished to the petitioner and the review petition was also carefully dealt with and dismissed on merit. Further, the petitioner was given ample opportunity to prove his innocence as per the principles of natural justice. The 1^st respondent passed the order in appeal, confirming the order passed by the 2^nd respondent. The 2^nd respondent accepted the findings of the Tribunal that the charges 1 and 3 are proved and for the proven charges, which are grave in nature, the punishment of removal from service was ordered in the interest of justice. Therefore, he would pray to dismiss the above writ petition as devoid of merits.

This Court considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

_____________ Page 13 of 21_

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.33815 of 2015

It is seen that the charge memo dated 07.03.2006, containing three charges, was issued as against the petitioner. The three charges are (i) While working as VAO in Ogaiyur Village, Kallakurichi Taluk, demanded Rs.650/- from one Annamalai for processing the application for transfer of patta in January 2004, (ii) demanded a sum of Rs.300/- from one Raja Udaiyar on 27.02.2004 for issuing Chitta and Adangal extract FMB sketch etc., for the purpose of submitting the same for obtaining EB service connection and (iii) demanded a sum of Rs.2000/- on 21.02.2004 from one Chellamuthu for issuing Chitta, Adangal extract, FMB for the lands. The final order has been passed holding the two charges, viz., 1st and 3rd charges, as proved and the 2nd charge as not proved.

The charges have been framed based on the complaint given by Annamalai, Chellamuthu along with another before the Vigilance & Anti Corruption Department alleging that the petitioner had demanded money from them. Further, when the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner,

_____________ Page 14 of 21_

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.33815 of 2015

the enquiry report as well as the statement of witnesses examined and other documents produced at the time of enquiry, were not furnished to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner was able to answer for the charges alone as stated in the show cause notice dated 28.10.2008 and was not able to submit his explanation based on the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the statement of witnesses etc. The non-furnishing of the enquiry report is evident from the fact that when the show cause notice was served through the office of the Tahsildar, Kallakurichi, the petitioner's signature was obtained only at the bottom of show cause notice and no signature was obtained for the service of enquiry report. Though the respondents would state that the enquiry report and other documents were served on the petitioner, there is proof produced by the respondents to substantiate the same. Hence, reasonable opportunity was not given to the petitioner by furnishing sufficient documents and thus, there was miscarriage of justice.

It is also the contention of the petitioner that initially, in the year 2004, the said Annamalai had made an application for issuance of separate

_____________ Page 15 of 21_

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.33815 of 2015

patta to the Tahsildar, based on which, hearing was conducted by Tahsildar in March 2004, in which, the petitioner has deposed that the said Annamalai is not entitled for separate patta and he is eligible only for joint patta as the land belong to Pajanai Madam Kovil and Annamalai was issued with joint patta, contrary to his request. Thus, the said Annamalai has developed grudge against the petitioner and made a complaint to Revenue Divisional Officer along with few others in the name of villagers that the petitioner demanded money for the purpose of disbursement of Drought Relief. The said complaint was enquired into and the same was proved to be false. Therefore, the present complaint given by Annamalai was with ulterior motive only to harass the petitioner and thus, the genuineness of the complaint was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Further, as per the statement of the complainants viz., Chellamuthu, Annamalai and Raja Udayar, it is found that Chellamuthu has given statement that he has received Rs.300 from Raja on 27.02.2009 and handed over the same to the petitioner. The statement reads that when the

_____________ Page 16 of 21_

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.33815 of 2015

money was given by Annamalai, it was seen by Chellamuthu and when the money was given by Chellamuthu, it was seen by Annamalai and the money was borrowed from Raja Udayar to be handed over to the petitioner. However, Raja Udayar had deposed that he has not handed over any money to Chellamuthu nor the petitioner had demanded any money from him. Thus, there are major discrepancies in the version of the complainants with regard to the very alleged demand of bribe. As there is contradiction in the statement given by the complainants, their statement cannot be believed and thus, the genuineness of the complaint has not been properly proved. Therefore, from their evidence, it becomes doubtful insofar as the alleged demand of bribe by the petitioner from the complainants is concerned.

Further, the petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity by furnishing relevant documents to give proper explanation to the show cause notice to disprove the charges, but the final order has been passed holding the charges as proved. There was no evidence to state that the petitioner has received money from the complainants except the statement of the

_____________ Page 17 of 21_

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.33815 of 2015

complainants that they have given money to the petitioner. Even the said statement is found to be false since the complainant Chellamuthu had given statement that he had received money from Raja Udayar and handed over the same to the petitioner whereas Raja Udayar had denied such incident. The respondents have held the charges as proved based on presumption and assumption and without verification of records and the statement of the witnesses.

Further, this Court, by order dated 25.11.2013 made in W.P.No.5584 of 2010 filed by the petitioner, directed the 1st respondent to opass orders on the appeal petition dated 18.03.20910 on merits and in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner also submitted further explanation to the 1st respondent enclosing all the documents and materials and requested the 1st respondent for personal hearing, whereas the impugned order was passed by the 1st respondent without providing any personal hearing to the petitioner, which amounts to violation of principles of natural justice.

_____________ Page 18 of 21_

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.33815 of 2015

For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings passed by the 2nd respondent dated 03.01.2010, the impugned proceedings passed by the 1st respondent dated 26.06.2014 and the subsequent proceedings issued by the 1st respondent dated 18.06.2015, are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to notionally reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service and grant all other attendant benefits, however, without backwages. The said exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

01.06.2023

Index :Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order vsi

To

The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Principal Secretary

_____________ Page 19 of 21_

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.33815 of 2015

to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George,

Chennai – 600 005.

The Principal Secretary/ Commissioner of Revenue Administration, (Diaster Management & Redressal), Chepauk,

Chennai – 600 005.

The District Collector, Villupuram District, Villupuram.

The Commissioner of Disciplinary Proceedings, Vellore, Vellore District -632 001.

J.NISHA BANU, J.

_____________ Page 20 of 21_

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.33815 of 2015

vsi

Pre-delivery order in W.P.No.33815 of 2015

01.06.2023

_____________ Page 21 of 21_

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in violation of principles of natural justice due to non-service of enquiry report.
2.
Whether the appellate authority acted without a personal hearing while rejecting the appeal and confirming dismissal.

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
R. Kannadasan
respondent
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Principal Secretary to Government
respondent
The Principal Secretary/ Commissioner of Revenue Administration
respondent
The District Collector, Villupuram District
respondent
The Commissioner of Disciplinary Proceedings, Vellore

Coram

AI extract

J. NISHA BANU

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 1 Jun 2023 · June
Registered: 16 Oct 2015
Case no.: WP/33815/2015
CNR: HCMA010432272015
Topic: Pension and Retirement Benefits
Bench: J. Nisha Banu
Disposal: ALLOWED

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from J. Nisha Banu

I.S.Hameeda Banu Vs The Commissioner of Collegiate
28 Apr 2023
B.Kalpana Vs State of Tamil Nadu
28 Apr 2023
Dr.P.Balasubramanian Vs Joint Director of School
28 Apr 2023
R.Madhavan Vs The Director General of Police
1 Jun 2023
A.Gulnar Vs the Chairman and Managing
1 Jun 2023
Dr.P.Ruby Renchith Sheela Vs The Registrar
1 Jun 2023

Cite this judgement

R.Kannadasan v. The State of Tamil Nadu, WP/33815/2015 (MAD), decided on 1 June 2023.

The Madras High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Bench / Coram

J. NISHA BANU

Parties & counsel