Banumathy Vs The Registrar General (Appellate Authority)

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the first respondent vide R.O.C.No. 36090/2024/C1/MB dated 07.11.2025, quash the same as arbitrary and consequently direct the third respondent to provide all the retirement benefits including sanctioning of last drawn salary for both earned and unearned leave and repay the deducted withheld amount to petitioner's appropriate pension account.

¶27

For Petitioner : Mr.Abulhasan.A

¶28

For Respondents : Mr.D.Venkatesh, Standing Counsel

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

[Order of the Court was made by DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.]

¶31

Writ Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the appellate authority imposing punishment of cut in two increments with cumulative

¶32

Page 2 of 6

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.(MD) No.986 of 2026

¶35

effect for the proven charges. The petitioner herein now retired from judicial ministerial service was appointed as Copyist in the Judicial Magistrate Court, Paramakudi, on 24.11.1992. While she was serving as a Record Keeper, disciplinary proceedings was initiated against her for four specific charges. Prior to that, memo was issued to her and explanation was received and found not satisfactory. After due enquiry, enquiry officer held the charges proved.

¶36

2. The appellate authority found that out of four charges three were proved and for dereliction of duty, the above punishment was imposed and the same was confirmed by the appellate authority, since the order of punishment does not suffer any infirmity. The proven charge against the writ petitioner is not properly receiving the property and assigning property number as per Form 91 received in the case in Cr.No.145/19 under Section 5(a) of Explosive Substance Amendment Act, for not placing final report received from the police in the file and not placing the surety bonds in the bail petition connected with crime No.115 of 2019 filed under Section 5 of the Indian Explosive Substance Act.

¶37

3. We find that the dereliction found and proved offences involving explosive substance has warranted imposing punishment of stoppage of

¶38

_____________ Page 3 of 6_

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.(MD) No.986 of 2026

¶41

increment for two years with cumulative effect. Out of four charges, the disciplinary authority has found that one of the charge is not proved. We do not find any malafide or improper examination and appreciation of witnesses. Out of 13 listed witnesses, enquiry officer has examined only 6 witnesses and that is been found fault with by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. If the evidence of 6 witnesses is sufficient, there is no necessity to multiply the witnesses. It is not the quantity of witnesses that weigh the decision, but it is only the quality of the witness.

¶42

4. Therefore, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.

¶43

[G.J., J.] & [K.K.R.K., J.]

¶44

28.01.2026

¶45

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes / No

¶46

MR

¶47

_____________ Page 4 of 6_

¶48

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