The State Of Tamil Nadu v. M.Kantharajan

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 22.08.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR and C.M.P.(MD)No.4018 of 2020 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Commercial Tax and Registration, Secretariat, Chennai-9.

2.The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Chennai-28.

3.The District Registrar (Administration), Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

... Appellants / Respondents Vs.

M.Kantharajan ... Respondent / Petitioner PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying this Court to set aside the order dated 09.12.2019 made in W.P.(MD)No. 377 of 2014 and allow the writ appeal.

1/8

For Appellants : Mr.G.Suriyananth Additional Government Pleader For Respondent : Mr.A.Nawaz for M/s.Ajmal Associates

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.) The State Government has filed this appeal assailing the order dated 09.12.2019 made in W.P.(MD)No.377 of 2014 filed by the respondent herein. The respondent herein was working as Sub Registrar, Thirupuvanam in the year 2009. On 24.08.2009, there was a surprise inspection by the vigilance department. They detected that next to the seat of the delinquent, a sum of Rs.2,100/- was found. That apart, a sum of Rs.200/- was in pocket. It is well settled that before entering the office, the Sub Registrar has to make an entry in the register about the money carried by him personally. Such an entry was not made on 24.08.2009. Hence, the charge memo dated 18.11.2010 was issued. It contained the following articles of charges:- 2/8

3/8

2. Since explanation offered by the delinquent was not satisfactory, enquiry was ordered to be conducted. The enquiry officer came to the conclusion that all the four charges stood established. After getting the delinquent's further representation, the disciplinary authority passed an order of compulsory retirement vide order dated 14.05.2012. Aggrieved by the same, the delinquent filed an appeal before the Government. The appeal was dismissed vide G.O.(D).No.633, Commercial Tax and Registration Department dated 21.11.2013. Challenging the same, W.P. (MD)No.377 of 2014 was filed.

3. The learned single Judge vide order dated 09.12.2019 concluded that the misconduct attributed to the writ petitioner was only a procedural lapse. It was further noted that the order passed by the 4/8

Government, the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority are non-speaking. In this view of the matter, the punishment imposed on the writ petitioner was modified. Eventually, what was imposed on the writ petitioner was only cut in his pension to the tune of Rs.200/- per month for a period of two years.

4. The question that calls for consideration is whether the order passed by the learned single Judge is liable to be interfered with. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2025 INSC 1010 (State Bank of India Vs. Ramadhar Sao) had delineated the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters. After referring to two earlier decisions, it was held that the writ Court should verify if the process was fairly conducted. If on that ground, answer is in the affirmative, there cannot be any further interference with the decision taken by the authorities. It was further held that whether the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority agree with the findings of the enquiry officer, it is not necessary for them to write a detailed order. That apart, we are not able to agree with the observations of the learned single Judge that the delinquent can at best be attributed with procedural lapse 5/8

alone. It is very difficult to accept the explanation that a document writer would have left a sum of Rs.200 that too in a box near the table of the delinquent. The delinquent was given the fullest opportunity to defend himself.

5. After considering the entire materials on record, the enquiry officer as well as the authority came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner stood established. In fact, the learned single Judge had not characterized the findings as perverse or incorrect. On the other hand, the nature of misconduct attributed to the delinquent alone has been sought to be labelled as a mere procedural lapse. We do not agree. We are of the view that the authorities have been quite indulgent while handing out the punishment. The writ petitioner has not been dismissed from service. He had only been compulsorily retired. It means that except 1/3 cut in his gratuity, he will be getting all the other benefits.

6. In this view of the matter, we set aside the order passed by the learned single Judge. The Writ Appeal is allowed. As a result of the compulsory retirement, there will only be 1/3rd cut in his gratuity and 6/8

nothing else. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

(G.R.S., J.) (K.R.S., J.) 22.08.2025 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No rmi 7/8

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

AND K.RAJASEKAR, J.

rmi W.A(MD) No.638 of 2020 22.08.2025 8/8