MADRAS HIGH COURT (M. Dhandapani, J.) — Three Tamil Nadu Housing Board employees — a Manager (Marketing & Service) who executed sale deeds, a Surveyor who issued FMB sketches, and a Works Assistant who attested the execution — challenged their dismissal dated 30.04.2019 (proceedings DC2/13481/2016-1/-2/-4) and its confirmation by G.O. (D) Nos. 78 and 77 dated 01.11.2023 and G.O. (D) No.49 dated 04.07.2023, arising out of sale deeds for Commercial Plot Nos. K-2 and K-1B2, Arumbakkam, executed without orders of the competent authority or allotment procedure. Held: (i) judicial review under Article 226 examines only the manner of decision-making, not the correctness of disciplinary conclusions; the writ court does not reappreciate evidence, and adequacy or reliability of evidence is not open to challenge where some legal evidence supports the findings; (ii) the Manager's admission of execution stood, and her plea of threat and coercion failed as she examined no witness — non-examination of witnesses by the Board could not be turned against it; (iii) the Surveyor, who claimed a written requisition he never produced, rightly attracted an adverse inference; (iv) the witness-employees never pleaded coercion and their pleas were mutually counter-offensive; (v) bald natural-justice objections rejected; the disciplinary and appellate orders were speaking — separate reasons are unnecessary where the appellate authority concurs with evident application of mind; (vi) cancellation of the deeds and absence of financial loss do not efface the collusion, the intention being more dangerous than the averted loss; (vii) dismissal for usurpation of public property is neither disproportionate nor conscience-shocking. Writ petitions dismissed confirming the impugned orders; connected W.M.Ps. closed; no costs.
