Dismissed

The Secretary to Government v. D.Balasundaram

Madras HC12 Nov 2025/3226/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal challenged the Single Judge's order modifying compulsory retirement to stoppage of increment for a deceased employee. The bench dismissed the appeal holding the Single Judge's order just and proper despite arguing that remand was the usual remedy for disproportionate punishment, noting potential hardship to heirs. Police

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed and the writ petition order was upheld. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed. No order as to costs.

The Secretary to Government Vs D.Balasundaram — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.A No. 3226 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 12.11.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶8

W.A No.3226 of 2025 and

¶9

C.M.P.No.26366 of 2025

¶10

The Secretary to Government Commercial Taxes and Registration (K) Department Government of Tamil Nadu

¶11

Fort St.George

¶12

Chennai-600 009.

¶13

The Inspector General of Registration No.100, Santhome High Raod Santhome, Chennai-600 028.

¶14

..Appellants

¶15

¶16

D.Balasundaram S/o.K.Devadass

¶17

B.Prabhu S/o.Balasundaram

¶18

B.Dinesh S/o.Balasundaram

¶19

..Respondents

¶20

Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent to set aside the order dated 27.09.2024 made in W.P.No.23124 of 2012 and allow the above writ appeal.

¶21

Page Nos.1/6

¶22

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

¶23

W.A No. 3226 of 2025

¶24

For Appellants : Mr.U.Baranidharan Special Government Pleader for State Government Pleader

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

(Made by HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J. )

¶27

The challenge in this intra-Court appeal is to the order dated 27.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 23124 of 2012. By the said order, the learned Single Judge set aside the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on the deceased employee and substituted it with the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of three years without cumulative effect, and further directed the passing of all consequential orders.

¶28

2. During her lifetime, Tmt. S. Vijayalakshmi, wife of the first respondent and mother of respondents 2 and 3, who was employed as a Superintendent in the cadre of Sub-Registrar in the office of the District Registrar, Salem (West), was issued a charge memo containing seven charges. The Enquiry Officer, after conducting a detailed enquiry, submitted a report holding that all the charges against the deceased delinquent were proved.

¶29

Page Nos.2/6

¶30

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

¶31

W.A No. 3226 of 2025

¶32

Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement from service.

¶33

3. The said order of punishment was challenged before this Court in the aforesaid writ petition. After hearing both parties, the learned Single Judge passed the impugned order, which is the subject matter of the present appeal.

¶34

4. We have heard Mr. U. Baranidharan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants.

¶35

5. Charges 1 to 6 pertained to incorrect entries made with respect to various marriages registered by the deceased employee, while Charge No. 7 related to non-adherence to the statutory requirement of giving 30 days’ notice before registering a marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954.

¶36

6. The learned Single Judge observed that Charges 1 to 6 did not relate to any deliberate acts of misconduct but to a failure to verify the entries made during the course of marriage registrations. On the face of it, the said charges were not of a serious nature, and no mala fide intention was attributed to the

¶37

Page Nos.3/6

¶38

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

¶39

W.A No. 3226 of 2025

¶40

deceased employee in respect of the irregularities alleged.

¶41

7. Therefore, when the charges were trivial in nature, the initiation of disciplinary proceedings under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 was held to be disproportionate. The learned Single Judge accordingly held that the punishment of compulsory retirement was shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the charges and, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, modified the punishment as stated above.

¶42

8. We find that the order of the learned Single Judge suffers from no illegality or infirmity warranting interference.

¶43

9. The contention of Mr. U. Baranidharan, learned Special Government Pleader for the State, that when the punishment is found disproportionate, the learned Single Judge ought to have remanded the matter to the Disciplinary Authority for reconsideration, is not acceptable.

¶44

10. Ordinarily, when a punishment is found disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct, the matter is remanded to the Disciplinary Authority

¶45

Page Nos.4/6

¶46

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

¶47

W.A No. 3226 of 2025

¶48

to impose an appropriate punishment. However, in the present case, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances, and considering that the charges against the deceased delinquent were trivial and that she is no more, remanding the matter to the Disciplinary Authority would cause monetary hardship and undue delay to her legal heirs, who are otherwise entitled to the benefits flowing from the order of the learned Single Judge. Such a remand, in our considered view, would result in miscarriage of justice.

¶49

11. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the impugned order

¶50

passed by the learned Single Judge is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court.

¶51

12. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶52

(R.S.K.,J) (H.C., J) 12.11.2025

¶53

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes / No mk

¶54

Page Nos.5/6

¶55

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

¶56

W.A No. 3226 of 2025

¶57

R. SURESH KUMAR, J. and HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.,

¶58

¶59

W.A No. 3226 of 2025

¶60

12.11.2025

¶61

Page Nos.6/6

¶62

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

The Secretary to Government v. D.Balasundaram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Secretary to Government v. D.Balasundaram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs T Sushmitha

The Secretary to Government Vs Senthamarai

Annamalai University Vs Pichumani R

S.Venkatesan Vs The Marakanam Adi Dravidar Salt Workers

The Government of Tamil Nadu Vs T.v.Narayanan

The Secretary to Government Vs K. Pugazhendhi