Disposed¶38

Anbarasan v. The District Collector

Madras HC21 Jan 2025WP/34780/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Certiorari writ, Article 226; stoppage of increment punishment with/without cumulative effect; disciplinary parity and differential treatment versus exonerated co-officer Tahsildhar Venkatachalam; pending revision petition dated 02.07.2013 before Secretary to Government, Revenue Department; District Collector Thanjavur; Principal Secretary cum Commissioner of Revenue Administrative & Disaster Management; eight-week disposal directive; Tamil Nadu revenue administration discipline.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with a direction to the 3rd respondent to dispose of the revision petition dated 02.07.2013 in accordance with law, considering the orders in respect of Tahsildhar Mr.Venkatachalam, within eight weeks; connected miscellaneous petitions closed; no costs. ¶38

Anbarasan Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should adjudicate the merits of the disciplinary punishment imposed on the petitioner when his revision petition dated 02.07.2013 remains pending before the 3rd respondent. +1 more

¶32

Court's answer

The Court declined to go into the merits of the disciplinary punishment because the petitioner's revision petition was pending for consideration before the 3rd respondent.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

The Court directed the 3rd respondent to dispose of the petitioner's revision petition dated 02.07.2013 in accordance with law, duly taking into consideration the orders passed in respect of Tahsildhar Mr.Venkatachalam (proceedings Na.Ka.No.Pani.3(3)/83359/2010 dated 20.09.2011).

¶37

Key takeaways

The Court fixed an outer limit of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order for disposal of the revision petition.ratio¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (single Judge, Mummineni Sudheer Kumar J., 21.01.2025), W.P. No.34780 of 2014 under Article 226 seeking certiorari against disciplinary orders of the District Collector, Thanjavur (Na.Ka.No.92976/2009/A4 dated 04.08.2010) imposing stoppage of increment with cumulative effect for one year, confirmed and modified by the 2nd respondent (Na.Ka.No.Pani.4(4)/83521/2010 dated 15.09.2012) to stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect. On the same allegations, Tahsildhar Mr.Venkatachalam was exonerated in appeal (beneficiary, the petitioner's brother, was working as a Newspaper Reporter). With the petitioner's revision petition dated 02.07.2013 pending before the 3rd respondent, the Court declined to adjudicate merits and directed disposal of the revision within eight weeks, duly taking into consideration the orders passed in respect of Mr.Venkatachalam (Na.Ka.No.Pani.3(3)/83359/2010 dated 20.09.2011); miscellaneous petitions closed, no costs.

¶1

W.P. No.34780 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 21.01.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶6

W.P.No.34780 of 2014

and

M.P.No.2 of 2014

Anbarasan

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.

¶13

2.The Principal Secretary cum Commissioner of Revenue Administrative & Disaster Management,

¶14

Ezhilagam, Chennai – 5.

¶15

3.The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 9. …Respondents

¶16

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the respondents in connection with the impugned orders passed by the 1^st respondent in Na.Ka.No.92976/2009/A4 dated 04.08.2010 and confirmed by the 2^nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.Pani.4(4)/83521/2010 dated 15.09.2012 and quash the same and grant such further relief.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Venkataramani, Senior Counsel

¶18

Page No.1 of 6

¶19

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

¶20

W.P. No.34780 of 2014

¶21

for Mr.M.Muthappan

¶22

For Respondents : Mr.P.Ganesan Additional Government Pleader.

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This writ petition has been filed challenging the orders passed by the 1^st

¶25

respondent bearing Na.Ka.No.92976/2009/A4 dated 04.08.2010 as confirmed by the 2^nd respondent in proceedings bearing Na.Ka.No.Pani.4(4)/83521/2010 dated 15.09.2012, imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect for one year on the petitioner and modifying the same as stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect.

¶26

Heard Mr.K.Venkataramani, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Ganesan. learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶27

During the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that, on the very same allegation levelled against the petitioner herein, disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against the Tahsildhar by name Mr.Venkatachalam, and an identical punishment was imposed by the disciplinary authority, namely the 1^st respondent, by imposing the punishment

¶28

Page No.2 of 6

¶29

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

¶30

W.P. No.34780 of 2014

¶31

of stoppage of increment without cumulative effect for six months against the said Mr.Venkatachalam. However, the said punishment was set aside by the 2^nd respondent. Whereas, the case of the petitioner was treated differently by imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect. In appeal, the said Mr.Venkatachalam was exonerated, on the ground that the beneficiary who happens to be the brother of the petitioner herein, was infact working as Reporter of a Newspaper and thereby his eligibility cannot be questioned. However, when the case of the petitioner came up for consideration, he is alleged to have been treated differently and punishment of stoppage of one increment for two years without cumulative effect was imposed on the him, while exonerating the Tahsildhar concerned fully. Under those circumstances, the petitioner also stated to have filed revision petition dated 02.07.2013 before the 3^rd respondent, and the same was pending by the date of filing of the present writ petition.

¶32

The respondents also filed counter affidavit and stated that the said revision petition filed by the petitioner was under consideration. As the revision petition filed by the petitioner was pending for consideration before the 3^rd respondent, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the case

¶33

Page No.3 of 6

¶34

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

¶35

W.P. No.34780 of 2014

¶36

and is of the considered view that it would be appropriate to direct the 3^rd respondent to dispose of the said revision petition duly taking into consideration the orders passed in respect of Tahsildhar, by the 2^nd respondent herein.

¶37

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3^rd respondent to dispose of the revision petition dated 02.07.2013 filed by the petitioner against the impugned order and to pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law duly taking into consideration the orders passed in respect of Mr.Venkatachalam, Tahsildhar vide proceedings Na.Ka.No.Pani.3(3)/83359/2010 dated 20.09.2011 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶38