Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 53472 (MAD)

State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Veluchamy

2026-06-02

M Jothiraman, N Sathish Kumar

body2026
JUDGMENT : M. JOTHIRAMAN, J. 1. Under assail is the order passed in WP.(MD)No.14623 of 2020 dated 16.06.2023. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their ranking in WA.(MD)No.670 of 2024. 2. Originally the appellant has challenged the order passed by the first respondent vide G.O.(Pa)No.64 Tourism Culture and Religious Endowments Department, dated 06.06.2020 confirming the impugned proceedings of the second respondent dated 20.07.2017 and quash the same and to direct the officials to restore the original seniority and post of the writ petitioner conferring all the promotional, monetary benefits including the back wages on par with his Seniority. 3. According to the Appellant, while he was working as Executive Officer Grade II in Arulmigu Soundhararaja Perumal Temple, Thadicombu, Dindigul District from 11.09.2012 to 21.06.2015 for the Fasli year 1421 to 1424. Consequently, he was issued with charge memo under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules comprising of 6 charges vide proceedings dated 25.01.2016. Enquiry was conducted and it was held that out of 6 charges, charges 1 to 4 and 6 were proved, 5th charge was not proved. The second respondent vide impugned proceedings dated 25.03.2019, imposed punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect for 2 years as and when it falls due. He filed statutory appeal on time. However, after a lapse of about 3 years, the first respondent dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant. Challenging the same, the appellant preferred the writ petition. 4. The learned Writ Court allowed the writ petition in the following terms:- “4. Since the statutory procedure was not adopted before levying major penalty, the order impugned in the writ petition is quashed. The matter is remitted to the file of the second respondent. It is open to the second respondent to take recourse the major penalty procedure imposed against the petitioner. If the second respondent decides to resume disciplinary action, its pendency will not come in the way of the petitioner from being considered for promotion.” Aggrieved over the findings of the learned Writ Court that the pendency of disciplinary action will not come in the way of the appellant from being considered for promotion, the respondents have preferred the writ appeal in WA.(MD)No.17 of 2025. Similarly, aggrieved over the findings of the learned Writ Court that matter is remitted back to the file of the second respondent to conduct enquiry, the appellant has preferred the writ appeal in WA.(MD)No.670 of 2024. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the learned Writ Court erred in remanding back the matter without taking into consideration of the gravity of the charges and apparent predetermined conduct on the part of the respondents in imposing major punishment. The learned Writ Court failed to appreciate the inordinate delay and laches on the part of the respondents in initiating disciplinary proceedings against the appellant. The learned Writ Court failed to note that the allegation of misappropriation (Charge No. 5) was held not proved and that it was never the case of the respondents that the appellant had acquired disproportionate assets by circumventing the prescribed procedure. Even assuming procedural violations, disciplinary action under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules for imposing a major punishment is impermissible in view of the Circular dated 02.02.2017. The findings relating to the alleged violations of Rules 7(1)(a), 7(1)(b)(i) and 7(1)(b)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1973 are arbitrary and suffer from non-application of mind. Having accepted that the appellant had sought prior permission through letters dated 20.02.2004, 16.08.2012 and 11.07.2014, the respondents ought not to have imposed a major punishment. The respondents neither rejected nor returned the appellant’s applications for permission at any point prior to the framing of charges. The failure of the respondents to act upon the applications within a reasonable period, particularly beyond six months, entitled the appellant to treat the requests as deemed to have been sanctioned. Acting on such deemed sanction, the appellant proceeded with the purchase of the property and construction thereon; consequently, the subsequent disciplinary action is un-sustainable. 6. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the findings of the learned Writ Court, that the statutory procedure was not adopted before levying major penalty to the writ petitioner, whereas, the writ petitioner never raised such procedural lapses either in the departmental appeal or grounds raised in the writ petition. 6. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the findings of the learned Writ Court, that the statutory procedure was not adopted before levying major penalty to the writ petitioner, whereas, the writ petitioner never raised such procedural lapses either in the departmental appeal or grounds raised in the writ petition. The learned writ Court erred in observing that if the second appellant decides to resume disciplinary action, its pendency will not come in the way of the writ petitioner from being considered for promotion. There is a bar for promotion during pending of disciplinary proceedings initiated under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal). The findings of the enquiry officer was not only based on the records but also after perusing the written explanation of the writ petitioner and hence, the authorities have rightly imposed the punishment. 7. We have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the records carefully. 8. For the question whether the matter should be remitted or not, it is seen from the report of the enquiry officer that some of the documents were not marked through any witnesses and the procedures contemplated under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules have not been followed by the enquiry officer in conducting the enquiry. Since statutory procedures were not followed before imposing the major penalty, we are of the view that the learned Writ Court rightly quashed the order impugned in the writ petition. There is no infirmity in the order of the learned Writ Court with regard to the remitting back the matter to the second respondent to conduct enquiry. 9. With regard to the question whether the appellant is entitled to the promotion or not, the learned Writ Court is not correct in holding that pendency will not come in the way of the petitioner from being considered for promotion since as per Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, pendency of disciplinary proceedings is a bar for promotion. It is relevant to refer Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, which lays down how the panel/approved list for the promotion is prepared and Schedule XI provides for the procedure for preparing that panel/approved list. It is relevant to refer Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, which lays down how the panel/approved list for the promotion is prepared and Schedule XI provides for the procedure for preparing that panel/approved list. Schedule XI-Part A(II) (8) & (19) reads as follows:- “(8) Pendency of charges framed under rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules against a member of a service shall be a bar for inclusion of his name in the approved list. (19) The case of a member of service whose promotion or appointment has been deferred on account of any pending charges, shall be reopened after disposal of the charges and appropriate orders shall be passed on merits, either giving him promotion or appointment if he is exonerated or acquitted of the charges and if there is no other adverse factor to be reckoned or denying him promotion or appointment or giving promotion or appointment from a later date, depending upon the nature of punishment and other factors to be reckoned in other cases. In all such cases, the appointing authority shall take suo moto action within fifteen days from the date of issue of final orders in the departmental disciplinary case or criminal case.” On reading the above mentioned rules, as per Rule 8 as long as the disciplinary proceedings remain pending, the delinquent/writ petitioner cannot be included in the promotion list. However, Rule 19 of same schedule act as the safeguard to the delinquent by stating that 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 to his seniority. In view of the above reasons, findings of the learned Writ Court with regard to that pendency of the disciplinary proceedings will not come in the way of the appellant from being considered for promotion has to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside. 10. In view of the above reasons, findings of the learned Writ Court with regard to that pendency of the disciplinary proceedings will not come in the way of the appellant from being considered for promotion has to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside. 10. Considering the fact that the matter has remained under prolonged litigation for over a decade as the departmental proceedings was initiated in the year 2016, major punishment imposed in the year 2017 and the appeal came to be dismissed in the year 2020 and thereafter the writ petition and the present writ appeal being disposed of only in 2026, it is just and proper to direct the second respondent to conduct enquiry and conclude the same, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. In the result, with the above observation and directions, the writ appeals are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.