The State of Tamilnadu Vs K.Veluchamy — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

The State of Tamilnadu Vs K.Veluchamy — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Both writ appeals disposed of with directions: the learned Writ Court's quashing of the major-penalty order and remand to the second respondent for fresh enquiry are upheld; its finding that pendency of disciplinary action will not preclude consideration for promotion is set aside; the second respondent is directed to conclude the enquiry within three months; no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the disciplinary enquiry complied with the statutory procedure contemplated under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, and whether the matter should be remitted to the second respondent for a fresh enquiry. +1 more

Court's answer

Since statutory procedures under Rule 17(b) were not followed before imposing the major penalty (some documents were not marked through any witnesses), the learned Writ Court rightly quashed the order impugned in the writ petition.

Ratio / Principle

There is no infirmity in the learned Writ Court's order remitting the matter back to the second respondent to conduct enquiry.

Key takeaways

As per clause (8) of Schedule XI Part A(II) (referred to in the judgment as Rule 8), as long as disciplinary proceedings remain pending, the appellant cannot be included in the promotion list; pendency of charges framed under Rule 17(b) is a bar for inclusion of his name in the approved list.ratio¶55
As per clause (19) of Schedule XI Part A(II) (referred to in the judgment as Rule 19), once the disciplinary or criminal proceedings are concluded and the employee is exonerated or acquitted and there is no other adverse factor, the competent authority shall grant the promotion and the consequential benefits on par with his colleagues.ratio¶55

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent (WA.(MD)Nos.325 of 2024 by HR&CE authorities and WA.(MD)No.742 of 2025 by K. Veluchamy) against the order dated 16.06.2023 in WP.(MD)No.27216 of 2019 — Executive Officer Grade II, Arulmigu Soundhararaja Perumal Temple, Thadicombu — charged under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules (18 items, proceedings dated 16.09.2015); enquiry found only 5 charges proved, 2 partly proved, 11 not proved; the second respondent differed, held all charges proved vide proceedings dated 26.05.2017 and imposed reduction to a lower post for five years with cumulative effect; first respondent's appellate dismissal (G.O.(Pa)No.120 dated 30.09.2019) led to the writ petition. Learned Writ Court quashed the penalty as statutory procedure was not adopted before the major penalty, remitted the matter to the second respondent, and held pending disciplinary action would not preclude consideration for promotion. Division Bench (judgment by M. Jothiraman, J.; bench of N. Sathish Kumar and M. Jothiraman, JJ.): (i) enquiry officer did not mark some documents through witnesses and did not follow Rule 17(b) procedure; quashing upheld and remand for fresh enquiry affirmed; (ii) under Schedule XI Part A(II)(8) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, pendency of charges framed under Rule 17(b) bars inclusion in the approved/promotion list, so the Writ Court's contrary finding is set aside; (iii) under clause (19), on conclusion of proceedings and exoneration/acquittal without other adverse factors, the competent authority must grant promotion with consequential benefits; (iv) second respondent directed to conclude the enquiry within three months. Writ appeals disposed of; no costs; connected CMPs closed.