M.Vijayan,Assistant v. The Additional Chief
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA and W.M.P.No.23962 of 2018 M.Vijayan Assistant Commissioner / Executive Trustee, Arulmigu Devaraja Swami Thirukoil, Kancheepuram.
... Petitioner Vs.
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Tourism, Culture and Charitable, Endowments Department, State of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai - 600 034.
3. The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Tiruchirapalli - 5.
4. The Assistant Commissioner / Executive Officer, Arulmigu Jambugeswarar Akilandeswari Temple, Thiruvanaikoil, Trichy - 620 005.
5. Mr.B.Kumaradurai, The Joint Commissioner / Enquiry Officer, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, 1/6
Thanjavur.
Presently at:
Executive Officer, Arulmigu Sree Mariamman Tirukoil, Samayapuram, Trichy District.
... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent comprised in G.O.(P)No.134 Tourism, Culture and Endowments (RE2-2)department dated 27.11.2014 and the consequential G.O.(P)No.97 Tourism, Culture and Endowments (RE2-2) Department dated 01.06.2017 issued by the first respondent and quash the same as being arbitrary, illegal, and irrational and consequently issue a Mandamus directing the respondents to grant the petitioner all service benefits such as differential salary, seniority and other attendant benefits for the suspension period viz., from 22.11.2012 to 19.11.2013.
For Petitioner :
Mr.S.Ilamvaludhi For R1 to R4 :
Mr.S.Ravichandran Additional Govt. Pleader (HR & CE) For R5 : Mr.R.Karthikeyan
ORDER
2/6
The writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the second respondent in G.O.(P)No.134 Tourism, Culture and Endowments (RE22)department dated 27.11.2014 and the consequential order passed by the first respondent in G.O.(P)No.97 Tourism, Culture and Endowments (RE22)Department dated 01.06.2017 and to direct the respondents to grant the petitioner all service benefits from 22.11.2012 to 19.11.2013.
2. The petitioner had joined as Junior Assistant on 06.03.1985 and after rendering 32 years of service he retired in the post of Assistant Commissioner on 30.06.2022 due to his attaining the age of superannuation. On 02.11.2012, the petitioner was issued with a charge memo by the third respondent alleging charges with regard to opening the tender on 22.06.2012 in respect of printing of free tickets for Fasli 1422 with regard to Jambukeswarar Akilandeswari Thirukoil, Tiruvanaikaval, Srirangam Taluk, Trichy District. At the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of censure. The petitioner has filed a review petition before the first respondent Reviewing Authority and the Reviewing Authority has chosen to confirm the punishment for rejecting the review. The only grievance of the petitioner is that the first respondent Reviewing Authority did not consider the grounds raised by the petitioner in his review application and had chosen to adopt the same 3/6
reasons assigned by the disciplinary authority. According to the petitioner there is non-application of mind on the part of the first respondent while confirming the order of punishment of censure imposed against him.
3. Mr.S.Ravichandran, the learned Additional Government Pleader, for the respondents 1 to 4, submitted that the petitioner has been given with the punishment of censure as he is not directly responsible for the occurrence and the Assistant Commissioner who was directly responsible has been imposed with severe punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect; though this petitioner was working as a 'Superintendent' at the relevant point of time he was also given with the charge memo on the allegations that the signatures were not obtained from the appropriate authority before finalising the tender.
4. It is learnt that the petitioner has been given with due opportunity during the disciplinary proceedings and there cannot be any quarrel on that aspect. So far as the reviewing authority is concerned, if the reviewing authority accepts the reasoning given by the disciplinary authority, the petitioner cannot expect any elaborate discussion in the review. Only when the reviewing authority differs from the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and finds 4/6
that there is violation in adopting the due process at the time of conducting the enquiry, the scope of review might have gone to the benefit of the petitioner. As the petitioner has already got retired, I do not find any palpable illegality in the order passed by the first respondent and the impugned orders does not require any interference.
5. With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
07.02.2025 Index : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order bkn 5/6
R.N.MANJULA, J.
bkn To:
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Tourism, Culture and Charitable, Endowments Department, State of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai - 600 034.
3. The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Tiruchirapalli - 5.
4. The Assistant Commissioner / Executive Officer, Arulmigu Jambugeswarar Akilandeswari Temple, Thiruvanaikoil, Trichy - 620 005.
07.02.2025 6/6