Dismissed¶48

K.Punithavel v. The Secretary

Madras HC17 Nov 2025WP/41848/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras HC (K. Surender, J., 17-11-2025) dismisses WP No. 41848 of 2016 challenging certiorari under Article 226 against G.O. No. 81/C.T. and Registration Department dated 09.03.2016 confirming stoppage of next increment for one year without cumulative effect (proceedings No. 44377/AA1/2011 dated 20.01.2012) for nine-month delay in acting on Trichy District Registrar letter dated 13.12.2010, deemed violation of Rule 20 of the Government Servant Conduct Rules; explanation held to have been considered; disciplinary and appellate findings upheld.

What did the court decide?

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that his explanation was not examined is incorrect; the order of the Inspector General of Registration shows the explanation was considered and a finding was given against him. ¶47

K.Punithavel Vs The Secretary — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

WP No. 41848 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 17-11-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. SURENDER

¶6

WP No. 41848 of 2016

K.Punithavel

Petitioner(s)

The Secretary The Commercial Tax and Registration Department, Secretariat Building, Chennai 9.

¶11

2.The Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai 28

¶12

3.The Secretary Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Braser Bridge Road, Chennai 3

¶13

Respondent(s)

¶14

PRAYER

¶15

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent vide G.O. No. 81/C.T. and Registration Department dated

¶16

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

¶17

WP No. 41848 of 2016

¶18

09.03.2016 whereby confirming the punishment imposed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings No. 44377/AA1/2011 dt 20.1.2012 and to quash the same.

¶19

For Petitioner(s): Mr. G.Thangavel For Respondent(s): Mr.Stalin Abhimanyu AGP for R1 And R2 Mr.B.Vijay Standing for R3

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking to quash the impugned

¶22

order passed by the first respondent vide G.O. No. 81/C.T and Registration

¶23

Department dated 09.03.2016, which confirmed the punishment imposed by the

¶24

second respondent in his proceedings No. 44377/AA1/2011 dated 20.01.2012.

¶25

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, while functioning as

¶26

an Assistant in the V Section of the Officer Inspector General of Registration,

¶27

was found irresponsible for delaying action on a letter dated 13.12.2010

¶28

received from the Trichy District Registrar. The delay of nine months in acting

¶29

upon the letter was deemed a violation of Rule 20 of the Government Servant

¶30

Conduct Rules.

¶31

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

¶32

WP No. 41848 of 2016

¶33

After issuing a charge memo and receiving the petitioner’s explanation

¶34

vide letter dated 14.11.2011, an enquiry was conducted. The main contention of

¶35

the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner’s explanation was not considered. However, the order of Inspector General of Registration reveals that

¶36

the explanation regarding the charge of delay was discussed and found contrary

¶37

to the office procedural rules. The disciplinary authority held that the petitioner had acted negligently and irresponsibly.

¶38

The relevant extract from the order of the Inspector General of

¶39

Registration reads as under:

¶40

“ The reasons put forth in the explanation of the charged official are contrary to the office procedural rules. It has been established that the charged officials has acted negligently and irrespectively in handling confidential and highly important files. However, on compassionate consideration, as punishment for the proved charge, it is hereby ordered that the next increment of the charged official shall be stopped for one year without cumulative

¶41

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

¶42

WP No. 41848 of 2016

¶43

effect.

¶44

This punishment shall not take effect from the date of his next increment. If the charged official proceed on leave during the period of punishment, such leave shall not be reckoned as part of the punishment period. Further, this punishment shall not affect his pensionary benefits.

¶45

The charged official is required to acknowledge receipt of this order….. ”

¶46

On a perusal of the above order, it reveals that the explanation of the

¶47

petitioner was considered and a finding was given against him. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that his explanation was not examined is incorrect. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the disciplinary authority and subsequent Appellate Authority.

¶48