Dismissed

The Additional Chief Secretary to Government v. P Sivasakthi

Madras HC9 Jan 2026/58/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A disciplinary inquiry found specific charges of misconduct against a government servant unproved but sustained a charge under Rule 20 of the Conduct Rules for failing to maintain integrity. The High Court held that the integrity charge cannot stand independently without evidence of underlying misconduct and dismissed the department's appeal.

What the court decided

AI extract

The Additional Chief Secretary to Government Vs P… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

W.A.No.58 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 09.01.2026

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED

¶6

W.A.No.58 of 2026

¶7

The Additional Chief Secretary to Government Government of Tamil Nadu Home (Transport II) Department Fort St. George, Chennai 09.

.. Appellant

Vs.

P. Sivasakthi

.. Respondent

Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 17.03.2025 made in W.P.No.4160 of 2022.

¶13

For the Appellant : Mr.P.Kumaresan Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.P.Anandakumar Government Advocate

¶14

For the Respondent : Mr.S.Mani

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)

¶17

The present intra-Court appeal has been directed against the

¶18

order passed by the Writ Court dated 17.03.2025 made in W.P.No.4160 of 2022.

¶19

Page 1 of 8

¶20

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

¶21

W.A.No.58 of 2026

¶22

The respondent was the writ petitioner, who was appointed

¶23

as Assistant in the Transport Department on 06.12.1012 and she joined on 10.12.2012. Thereafter, she was transferred as Assistant in the Office of the Regional Transport Officer, Salem, on 07.12.2013, where, she joined on 11.02.2013.

¶24

When that being so, on 15.12.2013, a raid was conducted by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department at the Office of the Regional Transport Officer, Salem, where, as against the respondent/writ petitioner, it was alleged that she was having Rs.200/- in her wallet. Except this, no specific allegation has been made. With regard to the other Officers working in that Office, there were charges framed against them, however, the Tribunal of Disciplinary Proceedings, Coimbatore, initiated Disciplinary Proceedings on 02.09.2014 in T.D.P. Case No.5 of 2014 in connection with the said incident and the respondent/writ petitioner was arrayed as Accused No.11.

¶25

After a detailed enquiry, the Tribunal submitted its report stating that, Charge Nos.2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 were not proved and Charge No.6 was dropped by the Government Order vide G.O.2(d)No.184, Home (Transport-II) Department, dated Page 2 of 8

¶26

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

¶27

W.A.No.58 of 2026

¶28

30.05.2014. In respect of Charge No.9 against the respondent/writ petitioner, it was said to be proved, as she failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion towards duty as contemplated under Rule 20 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1973¹ . On this basis, the Disciplinary Authority inflicted the punishment of with-holding the increment for a period of three years without cumulative effect. As against the said punishment, she filed the said writ petition.

¶29

The learned Writ Court, having considered the factual matrix, found that, since all the charges framed against the respondent/writ petitioner being not proved, the Charge No.9 cannot sustain independently, as it is only to maintain absolute integrity and devotion towards duty as contemplated under Rule 20 of the Rules of 1973. Therefore, the learned Judge allowed the said writ petition by setting aside the punishment, as against which, the present appeal has been filed.

¶30

Heard Mr.P.Kumaresan , learned Additional Advocate

¶31

General for the appellant and Mr.S.Mani , learned counsel for the respondent.

¶32

1 In short, referred to as “the Rules of 1973”.

¶33

Page 3 of 8

¶34

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

¶35

W.A.No.58 of 2026

¶36

The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellant has submitted that it is only a case against the petitioner and also some other delinquents, against whom also charges have been framed, of course, following the raid conducted by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department. When that being so, the Charge No.9 proved against the respondent/writ petitioner/delinquent is on the basis of preponderance of probability, which is a degree of proof in any Disciplinary Proceedings. Therefore, that cannot be found fault with by the learned Judge, who set aside the said punishment.

¶37

We are not impressed with the said submission made by the learned Additional Advocate General for the simple reason that, insofar as the Charge No.9 is concerned, it is not a specific charge against the respondent/writ petitioner. It only says that she failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion towards duty. Unless any one of the main charges is proved, it cannot be stated that the respondent/writ petitioner/delinquent has failed to maintain absolute integrity. Since the charges framed against her have not been proved, there was no iota of evidence made against the respondent/writ petitioner/delinquent, the question of proving any

¶38

Page 4 of 8

¶39

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

¶40

W.A.No.58 of 2026

¶41

proved.

¶42

charge does not arise, as none of the main charges have been proved.

¶43

The Charge No.9, relating to maintaining absolute integrity or failing to maintain absolute integrity, may not be a charge, as that cannot be independently stated to be proved, as has been stated by the Tribunal. Therefore, on that context, no punishment could have been inflicted against the respondent/writ petitioner. Therefore, this aspect has been considered by the learned Judge in proper perspective by giving findings that even to apply the principles of preponderance probability, there should be some evidence. Without any material evidences, either orally or documentary, to prove the misconduct leveled against the respondent/writ petitioner, even the principles of preponderance probability are not attracted and therefore, the punishment imposed on the basis of principles of preponderance of probability cannot be sustained, was the findings given by the learned Judge, of course, rightly.

¶44

In that view of the matter, we do not find any reason to interfere with the said view taken by the learned Judge in allowing the said writ petition through the order impugned. As a result of

¶45

Page 5 of 8

¶46

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

¶47

W.A.No.58 of 2026

¶48

which, the writ appeal fails, hence, it is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. The orders passed by the Writ Court shall be implemented by the appellant Department within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, no further coercive steps shall be taken, where, if any orders have been passed issuing warrant, that need not be implemented.

¶49

(R.S.K., J.) (S.S.A., J) 09.01.2026

¶50

Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶51

(drm)

¶52

Page 6 of 8

¶53

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

¶54

W.A.No.58 of 2026

¶55

To:

¶56

The Additional Chief Secretary to Government Government of Tamil Nadu Home (Transport II) Department Fort St. George, Chennai 09.

¶57

Page 7 of 8

¶58

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

¶59

W.A.No.58 of 2026

¶60

R. SURESH KUMAR, J. AND SHAMIM AHMED, J.

(drm)

W.A.No.58 of 2026

09.01.2026

Page 8 of 8

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

The Additional Chief Secretary to Government v. P Sivasakthi

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

The Additional Chief Secretary to Government v. P Sivasakthi

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Kalaichelvan Vs The Director Of Public Health and Preventive Medicine

The Agricultural Production Vs K.Harikrishnan

The District Elementary Educational Officer Vs G Anusuya

The District Revenue Officer Vs Y.Isaac

The Principal Secretary to Government, Vs J.Chitti Babu

The Additional Principal Chief Vs L Magilan