A government employee challenged orders denying retirement with pensionary benefits from 31.03.2016. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in State of Karnataka v. Umesh, involving an analogous dispute, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
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.
W.P.No.21107 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.11.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
W.P.No.21107 of 2021 and W.M.P.No.22364 of 2021
P.Karunakaran
... Petitioner
Vs.
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in No.E1/36982/2013-I dated 17.10.2018 and consequential order of the first respondent in G.O(Ms).No.225, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, dated 19.11.2019 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to retire from service with effect from 31.03.2016 with all pensionary benefits.
Page 1 of 5
W.P.No.21107 of 2021
For Petitioner : Ms.P.Mahalakshmi For Respondents : Ms.K.Vasanthamala, GA
O R D E R
This Writ Petition has been filed for quashment of the order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in No.E1/36982/2013-I dated 17.10.2018 and consequential order of the first respondent in G.O(Ms).No.225, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, dated 19.11.2019 and consequently, to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to retire from service with effect from 31.03.2016 with all pensionary benefits.
2.Heard the learned counsel on either side and also perused the materials available on record.
3.The case of the petitioner herein is similar to that of the dispute which arose in the Civil Appeals in C.A.Nos.1763-1764 of 2022 ( the State of Karnataka and another Vs. Umesh ). In the said Civil Appeals, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed the following order:
Page 2 of 5
W.P.No.21107 of 2021
“17. In the exercise of judicial review, the Court does not act as an appellate forum over the findings of the disciplinary authority. The court does not re-appreciate the evidence on the basis of which the finding of misconduct has been arrived at in the course of a disciplinary enquiry. The Court in the exercise of judicial review must restrict its review to determine whether: (i) the rules of nature justice have been complied with; (ii) the finding of misconduct is based on some evidence; (iii) the statutory rules governing the conduct of the disciplinary enquiry have been observed; and (iv) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority suffer from perversity; and (v) the penalty is disproportionate to the proven misconduct. However, none of the above tests for attracting the interference of the High Court were attracted in the present case. The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal having exercised the power of judicial review found no reason to interfere with the award of punishment of compulsory retirement. The Division Bench of the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 226 and trenched upon a domain which falls within the disciplinary jurisdiction of the employer. The enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of nature of justice. The findings of the inquiry officer and the disciplinary authority are sustainable with reference to the evidence which was adduced during the enquiry. The acquittal of the respondent in the course of the criminal trial did not imagine upon the
Page 3 of 5
W.P.No.21107 of 2021
authority of the disciplinary authority or the finding of misconduct in the disciplinary proceeding.”
4 . The subject matter in issue is also similar to that of the Civil Appeals
filed in C.A.Nos.1763-1764 of 2022, in which the aforesaid order has been passed.
13.11.2024
vkr Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes / No
To
Page 4 of 5
W.P.No.21107 of 2021
VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
vkr
W.P.No.21107 of 2021 and W.M.P.No.22364 of 2021
13.11.2024
Page 5 of 5
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the compulsory retirement order could be maintained in view of the Supreme Court's ruling in a similar matter.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
The State of Karnataka and another Vs. UmeshFollowed¶3
C.A.Nos.1763-1764 of 2022
1 provisions across 1 enactments
P.Karunakaran
The Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Commercial Taxes and Registration, Fort St. George, Chennai
The Additional Chief Secretary, Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chepauk, Chennai
Vivek Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
