Dismissed

The State of Tamil Nadu v. L. Damodaran

Madras HC17 Mar 2025WA/668/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeal challenging enhancement of punishment from stoppage of increments to dismissal of service. Court dismissed appeal finding enhancement valid but upheld writ court setting aside enhancement due to violation of mandatory rule regarding opportunity to show cause.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed; connected C.M.P. closed. No costs.

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs L. Damodaran — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.A.No.668 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 17.03.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE

¶7

W.A.No.668 of 2023

¶8

AND

¶9

C.M.P.No.6659 of 2023

¶10

1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009

¶11

2.The Director of Town Panchayats Kuralagam, Chennai 600 108 3.The District Collector Vellore District, Vellore .. Appellants Vs. L.Dhamodharan .. Respondent

¶12

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging the order dated 08.10.2021 passed in W.P.No.28338 of 2019.

¶13

For Appellants : Mr.R.Neelakandan Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.C.Selvaraj Additional Government Pleader For Respondent : Mr.K.Jenitha

¶14

1\8

¶15

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

¶16

W.A.No.668 of 2023

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

(Delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)

¶19

This intra-court appeal has been directed against the order dated 08.10.2021 passed by the writ Court in W.P.No.28338 of 2019.

¶20

The respondent who was working as a Bill Collector was superannuated on 31.10.2012. Just one day prior to his superannuation i.e ., on 30.10.2012, a charge memo dated 30.10.2012 was served on him, where two charges were framed. Based on the said two charges, inquiry was conducted under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, (in short “ the said Rules”).

¶21

After inquiry, since these two charges were held proved against the respondent/writ petitioner, the disciplinary authority i.e., the District Collector, by order dated 31.03.2016, imposed the punishment of stoppage of two increments and recovery of loss by deducting one-third from the Death-Cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG).

¶22

2\8

¶23

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

¶24

W.A.No.668 of 2023

¶25

As against the said punishment awarded against him, the respondent/writ petitioner had preferred statutory appeal to the 2^nd appellant i.e., the Director of Town Panchayats, who, instead of considering the appeal filed by the respondent/ writ petitioner, either to set aside or reduce the punishment, by order dated 27.07.2018, enhanced the punishment i.e., imposed the maximum punishment of dismissal from service, as against only the said writ petition was filed which was allowed by the impugned order.

¶26

Heard the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of

¶27

the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner.

¶28

The learned Additional Advocate General would submit that insofar as the enhancement of punishment is concerned, the appellate authority is entitled to make such an enhancement, provided, based on the proven charges as per the Inquiry Officer's report, if the adequate punishment is in commensurate with the proven charges. Such a statutory power vested with the appellate authority since has been exercised in this case, which cannot be found fault with, he contended.

¶29

3\8

¶30

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

¶31

W.A.No.668 of 2023

¶32

Even though a notice was sent to the respondent/writ petitioner to appear before the appellate authority, he did not appear and that would not make him entitle to take a defence that Rule 23 of the said Rules had not been followed by the appellate authority. Since on that ground, the order impugned before the writ Court imposing the enhanced punishment of dismissal from service against the writ petitioner, was set aside by the writ Court, that approach, according to the learned Government Advocate of the writ Court is erroneous. Hence, he seeks the indulgence of this Court against the order passed by the writ Court.

¶33

We have also heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner, who supports the order which is impugned herein.

¶34

We have gone through the impugned order passed by the writ Court.

¶35

Insofar as the proven charges are concerned, whether the respondent/

¶36

writ petitioner is liable to be punished, is not the question before the writ Court, as the punishment was already awarded by the disciplinary authority, viz. , stoppage of two increments and recovery of loss by deducting one-third from DCRG. That

¶37

4\8

¶38

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

¶39

W.A.No.668 of 2023

¶40

according to the writ Court, the punishment is in commensurate with the proven charges.

¶41

As against the said punishment or penalty when the employee preferred statutory appeal, the appellate authority, even though is empowered to enhance the punishment, the procedure was to be followed in such a case contemplated under Rule 23 of the said Rules, in fact, which has been extracted in paragraph 22 of the impugned order.

¶42

In clause (iii) of Rule 23 of the said Rules, it is made clear that no order imposing an enhanced penalty would be made in any other case, unless the appellant has been given a reasonable opportunity, as far as may be in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (a) of Rule 17 of making such representation against the penalty.

¶43

It is of the rule which is mandatory in nature should have been followed by the appellate authority, which was not followed as found by the learned Judge in paragraph 26 of the order, which reads thus :

¶44

5\8

¶45

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

¶46

W.A.No.668 of 2023

¶47

“26. In the facts of the present case, what is evident is that the petitioner has not been given a reasonable opportunity before a proposal was made for enhancing penalty imposed by the third respondent Original Authority. Therefore, the impugned order of the second respondent cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.”

¶48

Since it is factually found that the mandatory requirement was not followed by the appellate authority while imposing an enhanced punishment, that too, to the extent of maximum punishment of dismissal from service ought not have been inflicted on the respondent/writ petitioner and therefore, the impugned order, in our considered view is to be accepted.

¶49

Reason being that apart from this mandatory requirement, the charge memo itself was served on the respondent/writ petitioner on 30.10.2012, nearly after a decade for the alleged misappropriation which was of the year 2006-07 i.e., one day prior to his superannuation. This ground of last minute framing of charges by not allowing the employee retiring from service itself is impermissible, as per the Government Order issued in this regard.

¶50

6\8

¶51

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

¶52

W.A.No.668 of 2023

¶53

Assuming that before superannuation, the charge memo was issued and

¶54

the employee was not permitted to retire and based on which, Rule 17(b) inquiry was conducted, where the charges were held proved, for which the disciplinary authority already imposed the punishment as stated supra , that on the appeal filed by the employee at that juncture, the appellate authority, without following the mandatory requirement under Rule 23 of the said Rules, imposed the maximum punishment of dismissal from service, which cannot be approved by this Court. Therefore, to that extent, the reasoning given and the conclusion reached by the writ Court through the impugned order setting aside the enhanced punishment of dismissal from service, cannot be said to be erroneous. At the same time, the punishment inflicted by the disciplinary authority on the respondent/writ petitioner, has to be approved.

¶55

Resultantly, this writ appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Connected C.M.P. is closed.

¶56

(R.S.K., J.) (A.D.M.C., J.) 17.03.2025

¶57

gya Index:Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶58

7\8

¶59

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

¶60

W.A.No.668 of 2023

¶61

R. SURESH KUMAR, J. AND A.D. MARIA CLETE, J.

gya

W.A.No.668 of 2023

17.03.2025

8\8

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

The State of Tamil Nadu v. L. Damodaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Tamil Nadu v. L. Damodaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Savitha Bararia Vs Kalairaj.v

D.Anitha Vs D.Kesavan

The Legal Claim Manager Vs Poongodi

The Managing Director Vs Mohana

S. Shanmugavelu Vs The District Collector

The Additional Director General of Police /Inspector General of Prisons, Vs R.Gnanasekaran