Writ Appeal filed by the State against an order setting aside a minor disciplinary penalty imposed on a government servant. The Single Judge had set aside the penalty on grounds of parity with co-delinquents, specifically the superior officer who was not penalized.
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.A(MD)No.1780 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 04.07.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
W.A(MD)No.1780 of 2025 and C.M.P(MD)No.10082 of 2025
1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Water Resources Department, Fort St.George,
Chennai – 9.
The Principal Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, Chennai – 9.
... Appellants / Respondents
Vs.
V.Pandiarajan ... Respondent / Petitioner
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to allow the Writ Appeal and set aside the order dated 12.04.2024 made in W.P(MD)No. 8404 of 2023.
1/5
W.A(MD)No.1780 of 2025
For Appellants : Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam Government Advocate
For Respondent : Mr.V.Karthikeyan
JUDGMENT
(By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)
Heard both sides.
2.The writ petitioner was working as Additional Superintendent (schemes) in the year 2011. Certain complaints were made regarding the construction of a check dam in Akilandapuram Village, Kovilpatti Taluk. In this regard, charge memo was issued after a lapse of seven years. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against as many as 11 delinquents. The writ petitioner was found guilty and the punishment of stoppage of increment without cumulative effect for one year was imposed vide G.O(Ms)No.325 Water Resource (D1) Department dated 26.12.2022. Questioning the same, W.P(MD)No.8408 of 2023 was filed. The learned single Judge allowed the Writ Petition in the following terms:
“8. It is right to state that the petitioner ought to have known the difference between the words, “ jLg;giizapd; mUfpy; and near flood escape”. When the superior officer
2/5
W.A(MD)No.1780 of 2025
who also omitted to notice was let free, the petitioner who caused the note, could have been warned instead of given with a punishment of stoppage of increment for one year.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner attracted the attention of this Court to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others [(2013) 3 SCC 73] , wherein, it is held that while imposing punishment where a set of people involved in a same incident, parity among co-delinquents should be maintained.
10. Even in the case on hand, though punishment is not disproportionate, there is no parity between the codelinquents. In the administrative file movement, the superior officer who approves the note also, no doubt plays a crucial role. If the note making staff commits error in preparing the file and misleads the next level authorities, wrong orders might be obtained. So it is right for the first respondent to expect that the petitioner shall know the difference between “ jLg;giizapd; mUfpy; and near flood escape” and be vigilant in preparing the office note. But the responsibility of the superior officer is no way less than the staff who is responsible to prepare a note file. As the superior officer has not been found fault with and she was allowed to go free, I feel the punishment order issued against the petitioner should be set aside.”
Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Appeal has been filed.
3/5
W.A(MD)No.1780 of 2025
3.It is seen that, during the intervening period, the writ petitioner had retired from service. The punishment imposed was only a minor penalty. The learned single Judge has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to grant relief to the writ petitioner. In such petty matters, we are of the view that the Government ought not to file an appeal.
4.This Writ Appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[G.R.S., J.] [K.R.S., J.] 04.07.2025
NCC : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No MGA
4/5
W.A(MD)No.1780 of 2025
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J
and K.RAJASEKAR, J.
MGA
W.A(MD)No.1780 of 2025
04.07.2025
5/5
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the disciplinary penalty of stoppage of increment was justified despite the superior officer not being penalized for the same official error?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rajendra Yadav v. State of Madhya PradeshReferred¶29
Rajendra Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others [(2013) 3 SCC 73] · Who else cites this
State of Tamil Nadu (Water Resources Department)
State of Tamil Nadu (Public Works Department)
V.Pandiarajan
G.R.SWAMINATHAN
K.RAJASEKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
