As per case facts, the 1st petitioner, a former Sub Registrar, faced disciplinary proceedings for alleged financial loss, initiated just before his retirement and leading to his dismissal. His appeal ...
____________
W.P. No.2662/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved onPronounced on
08.01.2026 21.01.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P. NO.2662 OF 2024
AND
W.M.P. NO. 2934 OF 2024
1.Vairavan (Decd.)
2.V.Vijayalakshmi
3.V.Karthikeyan
4.V.Suresh
5.V.Sundaramoorthy .. Petitioners
(P-2 to P-5 substituted as LRs of
Deceased sole 1
st
petitioner vide
order dated 19.8.2025 in WMP
No.12987/2025)
- Vs -
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. By its Secretary to Government
Commercial Taxes & Registration Dept.
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Inspector General of Registration
100, Santhome High Road
Chennai 600 028. .. Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
this Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the entire records
1 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.2662/2024
relating to the proceedings of the 1
st
respondent in Government Order (D)
No.394, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 27.12.2023,
confirming the proceedings of the 2
nd
respondent in No.2861/A1/2013 dated
23.08.2022 quash the same as illegal and consequently directing the 2
nd
respondent to settle all the retirement benefits to the petitioner.
For Petitioners:Mr. S.Saravanan
For Respondents:Mr. P.Harish, GA
ORDER
Assailing the proceedings in and by which the 1
st
respondent confirmed
the punishment of dismissal from service inflicted on the petitioner, since
deceased, the present petition has been filed by the 1
st
petitioner seeking
quashment of the said order and also for a further direction to release the retiral
benefits due and payable to the 1
st
petitioner. Upon the death of the 1
st
petitioner, petitioners 2 to 5, who are the legal heirs of the 1
st
petitioner have
impleaded themselves as party petitioners to prosecute the petition.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the petition could be
summarised as under :-
The 1
st
petitioner, while working as Sub Registrar Grade-I,
Gobichettipalayam, was visited with disciplinary proceedings just three days prior
2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.2662/2024
to the date of his retirement from service on 31.01.2013 u/r 17(b) of the Tamil
Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules by issuance of a charge memo
dated 28.01.2013 and on the very same day, the 1
st
petitioner was placed under
suspension on the ground of the pending disciplinary proceedings in proceedings
No.53744/B1/2011 dated 23.11.2011 and proceedings No.2861/B1/2013/2013
dated 30.01.2013 and the 1
st
petitioner was not permitted to retire from service.
3. It is the further averment of the 1
st
petitioner that upon receiving the
charge memo, the 1
st
petitioner submitted his explanation to the charge memo
pointing out that he has not caused any financial loss to the department.
However, not being satisfied with the explanation, enquiry was initiated against
the 1
st
petitioner and the 1
st
petitioner participated in the enquiry and placed all
the requisite materials. It is the further averment of the 1
st
petitioner that since
the charge against the 1
st
petitioner is not one of moral turpitude or corruption,
the 1
st
petitioner filed W.P. No.2418/2014 for a direction to pass final orders in
the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the 2
nd
respondent in Charge Memo
No.53744/B1/2011 dated 23.11.2011 and finalise the disciplinary proceedings in
Charge Memo No.2861/B1/2013/2013 dated 30.01.2013. It is the further
averment of the 1
st
petitioner that this Court, vide order dated 28.01.2014,
3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.2662/2024
directed the 2
nd
respondent to pass final orders on the disciplinary proceedings
pending against the 1
st
petitioner by considering his explanation dated 2.10.2013
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Inspite of the same, the 2
nd
respondent has not concluded the enquiry and
passed any orders within the time frame fixed by this Court.
4. It is the further averment of the petitioners that there was a delay of
more than 10 years in concluding the disciplinary proceedings for which no
proper explanation was forthcoming, which vitiates the disciplinary proceedings
in the eye of law. It is the further averment of the petitioners that W.P.
No.20653/2022 was filed before this Court for a direction to the respondents to
disburse the retiral benefits payable to the 1
st
petitioner. However, pending the
disposal of the aforesaid writ petition, the 2
nd
respondent, in a hurried manner,
passed the order on 28.08.2022 and produced the order copy before this court
and based on the same, this Court, vide order dated 25.08.2022 disposed of the
writ petition with a direction to the 1
st
petitioner to make fresh application to the
respondents for payment of eligible monetary benefits as per rule and the
respondents were directed to consider the representation, if any, submitted by
the 1
st
petitioner and dispose of the same within a period of twelve weeks.
4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.2662/2024
5. It is the further averment of the petitioners that upon receipt of the
above order, the 1
st
petitioner preferred appeal before the 1
st
respondent on
30.09.2022, however, without issuing any notice regarding enquiry and without
hearing the appellant, the impugned order had come to be passed only to escape
from the clutch of the contempt proceedings, which was initiated by the 1
st
petitioner against the respondents. It is the further averment of the petitioners
that the impugned proceedings passed by the 1
st
respondent in the appeal clearly
reveals total non-application of mind, as there has been no consideration of the
materials placed by the 1
st
petitioner and it is merely a reproduction of the order
passed by the 2
nd
respondent, which is clearly an abdication of the authority
entrusted with the 1
st
respondent, which has led the petitioners to file the
present writ petition before this Court.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, furthering his arguments
on the materials placed in the affidavit, submitted that the 1
st
petitioner was
suspended from service at the 11
th
hour of his service, viz., merely three days
from the date of his superannuation, though it is the stand of the respondents
that the financial loss caused by the 1
st
petitioner was over a period of time,
5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.2662/2024
which was over a decade back. However, the respondents kept silent all through
the decade long journey and had inflicted the suspension at the 11
th
hour of the
superannuation of the 1
st
petitioner, which type of suspensions have been
deprecated by the Courts time and again.
7. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the allegations
raised against the 1
st
petitioner, without admitting, does not reveal any moral
turpitude or corrupt acts and at best it could be deemed to be an officiating
lapse, which could very well have been corrected and when the respondents
have not mulcted any corrupt act or moral turpitude on the 1
st
petitioner, the
proceedings initiated against the 1
st
petitioner, that too at the fag end of his
career after almost a decade from the alleged act clearly shows that it could only
be taken as a victimising act on the 1
st
petitioner.
8. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the 1
st
respondent has also not granted any opportunity of hearing before passing any
order in the appeal, which has been passed merely on the basis of the
recommendation of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and the order,
even read through, is a clear non-speaking order which is contrary to the rules.
6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.2662/2024
9. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the present
proceedings stand vitiated on the ground of inordinate delay in concluding the
disciplinary action, that too after a decade from the issuance of the first charge
memo, which merely alleges negligence in duty. In the absence of any valid
explanation for such a long delay, as per settled legal principles, the disciplinary
action initiated against the petitioner is liable to be interfered with.
10. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that in the first
round of litigation in W.P. No.2418/2014, this Court had directed the 2
nd
respondent to pass final orders in the disciplinary proceedings by considering his
explanation within a period of three months, however, despite the said order, the
2
nd
respondent had delayed passing of the said order by more than 10 years,
which vitiates the disciplinary proceedings.
11. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the inordinate
delay in the order being passed by the 2
nd
respondent without considering the ill-
health and old age ailments of the 1
st
petitioner without providing him sufficient
means to lead his life has, indeed, robbed the life of the 1
st
petitioner without the
7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.2662/2024
1
st
petitioner being able to see the fruits of his hard earned labour and during his
life, he had struggled to make both ends meet in meeting his day to-day
expenses. The lethargic act of the respondents in delaying the passing of the
order inspite of the directions issued by this Court should be taken into
consideration as a vitiating circumstance, which hits at the root of the disciplinary
enquiry, which is nothing but an act of victimisation against the petitioner.
Accordingly, he prays for allowing the present writ petition.
12. Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents, placing reliance on the counter affidavit, submitted that the 1
st
petitioner was visited with charge memos and after receiving explanation and
conduct of enquiry and the enquiry officer having held the charges proved, the
2
nd
respondent had called for further explanation from the 1
st
petitioner and
being not satisfied with the explanation, for the charges relating proceedings
dated 28.01.2013, the petitioner was dismissed from service.
13. It is the further submission of the learned Government Advocate that
the appeal filed against the said punishment also ended against the petitioner. It
is the further submission of the learned Government Advocate that the
8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.2662/2024
imputations against the 1
st
petitioner are voluminous data through audit
objections, which had to be perused as huge financial loss had been caused to
the Government and, therefore the delay had occasioned, which was not
wanton.
14. It is the further submission of the learned Government Advocate that
the right of appeal does not always provide a right of hearing and non-grant of an
opportunity of personal hearing does not vitiate the proceedings of the 1
st
respondent, moreso, when the said order was passed after consulting and
obtaining requisite opinion from the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission.
Further, the order passed by the 1
st
respondent is independent of the opinion of
the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and, therefore, the contention of the
petitioners in this regard is wholly misconceived.
15. It is the further submission of the learned Government Advocate that
the revenue loss to the exchequer due to incorrect levy of stamp duty and
registration fee due to gross undervaluation, though is not alleged to be moral
turpitude or corruption, registration of such large number of undervalued
documents leads to lakhs of rupees as financial loss, which deserves infliction of
9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.2662/2024
punishment of dismissal from service and, therefore, as per the rules, the 1
st
petitioner is not entitled for retiral benefits, though the 1
st
petitioner was paid
subsistence allowance during the period of suspension.
16. All the materials were properly taken into consideration by the
respondents before passing of the impugned order by the respondents and,
therefore, learned Government Advocate prays that no interference is warranted
with the punishment of dismissal.
17. In support of the aforesaid contention, learned Government Advocate
placed reliance on the decision of the Constitution Bench of the apex Court in
F.N.Roy – Vs – Collector of Customs, Calcutta & Ors. (1957 SCC OnLine SC 43).
18. This Court gave its careful consideration to the submissions advanced
by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials
available on record as also the decision relied on by the learned Government
Advocate for the respondents.
10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.2662/2024
19. The power of the Court in exercising its jurisdiction even for
quashment at the charge memo stage dates back to Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar
vs U.O.I. And Others (1999 (7) SCC 409) wherein the Supreme Court has held as
under :-
“40. When we talk of negligence in a quasi judicial
adjudication, it is not negligence perceived as carelessness
inadvertence or omission but as culpable negligence. This is
how this Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Singh Ex-
Constable MANU/SC/0426/1992 : [1992]3SCR634 interpreted
'misconduct' not coming within the purview of mere error in
judgment, carelessness or negligence in performance of the
duty. In the case of K.K. Dhawan MANU/SC/0232/1993 :
(1993)ILLJ777SC , the allegation was of conferring undue
favour upon the assessees. It was not a case of negligence as
such. In Upendra Singh's, case MANU/SC/0680/1994 :
(1994)ILLJ808SC , the charge was that he gave illegal and
improper directions to the assessing officer in order to unduly
favour the assessee. Case of K.S. Swaminathan
MANU/SC/1754/1996 : (1997)IILLJ1011SC , was not where the
respondent was acting in any quasi judicial capacity. This
Court said that at the stage of framing of the charge the
statement of facts and the charge-sheet supplied are required
to be looked into by the Court to see whether they support the
charge of the alleged misconduct. In M.S. Bindra's case
MANU/SC/0565/1998 : (1999)ILLJ923SC where the appellant
was compulsorily retired this Court said that judicial scrutiny of
11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.2662/2024
an order imposing premature compulsory retirement is
permissible if the order is arbitrary or mala fide or based on no
evidence. Again in the case of Madan Mohan Choudhary
MANU/SC/0105/1999 : (1999)IILLJ229SC , which was also a
case of compulsory retirement this Court said that there should
exist material on record to reasonably form an opinion that
compulsory retirement of the officer was in public interest. In
K.N. Ramamurthy's, case MANU/SC/0886/1997 :
AIR1997SC3571 , it was certainly a case of culpable
negligence. One of the charges was that the officer had failed
to safeguard Government revenue. In Hindustan Steel Ltd. 's,
case MANU/SC/0418/1969 : [1972]83ITR26(SC) , it was said
that where proceedings are quasi judicial penalty will not
ordinarily be imposed unless the party charged had acted
deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct
contumacious or dishonest or acted in conscious disregard of
its obligation. This Court has said that the penalty will not also
be imposed merely because it is lawful so to do. In the present
case, it is not that the appellant did not impose penalty
because of any negligence on his part but he said it was not a
case of imposition of penalty. We are, however, of the view
that in a case like this which was being adjudicated upon by
the appellant imposition of penalty was imperative. But then,
there is nothing wrong or improper on the part of the
appellant to form an opinion that imposition of penalty was
not mandatory. We have noticed that Patna High Court while
interpreting Section 325 IPC held that imposition of penalty
was not mandatory which again we have said is not a correct
12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.2662/2024
view to take. A wrong interpretation of law cannot be a
ground for misconduct. Of course it is a different matter
altogether if it is deliberate and actuated by mala fides.
41. When penalty is not levied, the assessee certainly
benefits. But it cannot be said that by not levying the penalty
the officer has favoured the assessee or shown undue favour
to him. There has to be some basis for the disciplinary
authority to reach such a conclusion even prima facie. Record
in the present case does not show if the disciplinary authority
had any information within its possession from where it could
form an opinion that the appellant showed 'favour' to the
assessee by not imposing the penalty. He may have wrongly
exercised his jurisdiction. But that wrong can be corrected in
appeal. That cannot always form basis for initiating
disciplinary proceedings for an officer while he is acting as
quasi judicial authority. It must be kept in mind that being a
quasi judicial authority, he is always subject to judicial
supervision in appeal.
42. Initiation of disciplinary proceedings against an officer
cannot take place on an information which is vague or
indefinite. Suspicion has no role to play in such matter. There
must exist reasonable basis for the disciplinary authority to
proceed against the delinquent officer. Merely because penalty
was not imposed and the Board in the exercise of its power
directed filing of appeal against that order in the Appellate
Tribunal could not be enough to proceed against the
appellant. There is no other instance to show that in similar
case the appellant invariably imposed penalty.
13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.2662/2024
43. If, every error of law were to constitute a charge of
misconduct, it would impinge upon the independent
functioning of quasi judicial officers like the appellant. Since in
sum and substance misconduct is sought to be inferred by the
appellant having committed an error of law, the charge-sheet
on the face of it does not proceed on any legal premise
rendering it liable to be quashed. In other words, to maintain
any charge-sheet against a quasi judicial authority something
more has to be alleged than a mere mistake of law, e.g., in the
nature of some extraneous consideration influencing the quasi
judicial order. Since nothing of the sort is alleged herein the
impugned charge-sheet is rendered illegal. The charge-sheet, if
sustained, will thus impinge upon the confidence and
independent functioning of a quasi judicial authority. The
entire system of administrative adjudication whereunder quasi
judicial powers are conferred on administrative authorities,
would fall into disrepute if officers performing such functions
are inhibited in performing their functions without fear or
favour because of the constant threat of disciplinary
proceedings.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
20. The above view of the Apex Court has been reiterated with approval in
its recent decision in Amresh Shrivastava – Vs - State of MP (2025 (4) SCR 488)
wherein it has been held that if the quasi-judicial order is passed in good faith
without indication of dishonesty, the power exercised by the said quasi-judicial
14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.2662/2024
authority shall not be the basis for a disciplinary proceeding. In the said decision,
the Apex Court held thus :-
“15. As regards the first question in K.K. Dhawan case
(supra), this Court carved out the following situations where
the government is not precluded from taking disciplinary
actions for violation of the Code of Conduct:
(i) Where the officer had acted in a manner as would
reflect on his reputation for integrity or good faith or devotion
to duty;
(ii) If there is prima facie material to show recklessness or
misconduct in the discharge of his duty;
(iii) if he has acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a
Government servant;
(iv) if he had acted negligently or that he omitted the
prescribed conditions which are essential for the exercise of
the statutory powers;
(v) if he had acted in order to unduly favour a party;
(vi) if he had been actuated by corrupt motive however,
small the bribe may be because Lord Coke said long ago
"though the bribe may be small, yet the fault is great.
After carving out the above exceptions, this Court
proceeded to further observe that mere technical violations or
the fact that an order is wrong, if not falling under the above
enumerated instances, does not warrant disciplinary actions. It
was further reiterated that each case depends on its facts, and
absolute Rules cannot be postulated. The above instances as
15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.2662/2024
referred and reproduced hereinabove, are thus only a guide
and not meant to be mandatorily adhere to without exception.
16. In the present case, we are of the considered view that
the charges alleged against the Appellant in the chargesheet
fall under the category of a wrongful order, which does not
appear to have been influenced by extraneous factors or any
form of gratification. It appears that the order has been
passed in good faith, without any indication of dishonesty.
Furthermore, the facts outlined in the Show Cause Notice do
not suggest any such impropriety. The power exercised by the
Appellant in his capacity as a Tehsildar, while passing the
order of Land Settlement Order, cannot be considered of a
nature that would warrant disciplinary proceedings against
him. The decision relied upon by the Counsel for the Appellant
as mentioned above, supports this view. Consequently, the
first question is answered in favor of the Appellant.”
21. True it is that in the aforesaid cases, the persons against whom the
proceedings were initiated were performing quasi-judicial functions, which is not
the case here. But certain observations and ratio laid down by the Apex Court in
the said decisions would have a bearing on coming to a decision in this case,
which has resulted in this Court relying on the said ratio. In this backdrop, this
Court has to test the disciplinary proceedings and the outcome of the same on
the touchstone of the six circumstances which have been formulated by the Apex
16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.2662/2024
Court to find out whether the action of the respondents against the 1
st
petitioner
could be sustained.
22. The first of the charge memo dates back to 2011 on which disciplinary
proceedings were initiated. However, no action has been taken on the said
disciplinary proceeding. In fact, three days prior to the superannuation of the 1
st
petitioner in January, 2013, the disciplinary proceedings has been initiated and
order of suspension has come to be passed.
23. There is no quarrel raised by the petitioners with respect to the
conduct of the enquiry. However, the whole case rests on the inordinate delay
which has occasioned not only in the initiation of the disciplinary enquiry, but
also in the culmination of the order of dismissal from service, which has been
issued after a decade from the date of suspension of the 1
st
petitioner.
24. Delay in all matters is fatal to the case and moreso by the respondents,
who discharge a public duty. A perusal of the charges reveal that it dates back to
levy of lesser stamp duty towards registration of instruments, which have been
registered by the 1
st
petitioner while working as Sub Registrar, which had caused
17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.2662/2024
loss to the exchequer to the tune of about Rs.89 and odd lakhs. However, it is
even evident from the counter that of the said amount about Rs.40 Lakhs have
been realised by the respondents and the loss quantified by the respondents
finally is to the tune of about Rs.42 Lakhs. The aforesaid act of levy of lesser
stamp duty is alleged to have taken place 10 years prior to the date of initiation
of disciplinary proceedings. There is no whisper from the respondents as to what
precluded them from initiating any enquiry during the period when the 1
st
petitioner was in service.
25. Out of blue, on 28.1.2013, three days prior to the date of
superannuation of the 1
st
petitioner on 31.01.2013, the disciplinary proceedings
have been initiated. There is no material to infer the source from which such
disciplinary proceedings have been initiated. It is casually stated by the
respondents in their counter that it is based on certain audit slips, but the source
is not clearly spelt out and no materials evidencing the same have been placed
before the Court. Though it is claimed by the respondents that the disciplinary
proceedings has been initiated based on audit slips, in the same breath, the
respondents, for the delay in finalising the findings of the enquiry state that
18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.2662/2024
voluminous documents required to be browsed through by the enquiry officer
before submission of the enquiry report.
26. The enquiry proceedings were taken up in the year 2013 and it had
culminated in the enquiry report in the year 2015, as it could be evidenced that
the inquiry report was furnished to the 1
st
petitioner through the communication
of the 2
nd
respondent on 11.02.2015. Yet no orders have come to be passed on
the enquiry report till the year 2022, more particularly till the time the contempt
proceedings were initiated by the 1
st
petitioner. There is no explanation for the
delay of more than seven years in passing orders on the enquiry report for which
there is no plausible explanation forthcoming from the respondents except
stating that voluminous documents were required to be gone into before passing
the final orders, which is grossly erroneous as the 2
nd
respondent is guided by the
enquiry report and is not required to deliberate on each and every document,
which has been relied on in the enquiry report, as otherwise the sanctity of the
enquiry itself would be a futile exercise.
27. Further, after receipt of the enquiry report, explanation was given by
the 1
st
petitioner detailing the various errors in the enquiry report. However, the
19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.2662/2024
proceedings of the 2
nd
respondent does not deal with any of the errors pointed
out by the 1
st
petitioner in the enquiry report, but in an act of haste, on the
initiation of contempt proceedings, the order seems to have been passed. So
also the order in the appeal, as could be seen, has been passed in haste, after
receipt of the opinion of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and even the
Commission has not deliberated on any of the materials rather than merely giving
its opinion, though the duty of the Commission is only to that extent. However,
the 1
st
respondent, as the appellate authority is not merely bound by the opinion
of the commission, but has to apply its mind independently to the materials
available before it, before passing any orders in appeal. However, the order of
the 1
st
respondent is cryptic and a parrot like version like the 2
nd
respondent and
merely relying on the opinion of the Commission. There is no due and proper
application of mind by the 1
st
respondents to the materials and also the enquiry
report and the order passed by the disciplinary authority.
28. There is a gaping hole in the whole of the case of the respondents with
regard to the inordinate delay, which has not been explained. It is the duty of
the respondents to explain the reason for the delay, not only for initiating the
disciplinary enquiry, which dates back to certain alleged laches on the part of the
20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.2662/2024
1
st
petitioner, which is alleged to have taken place in the year 2003 till the year
2012, but also the reason for the delay of almost eight years in the passing of the
order of dismissal by the 2
nd
respondent after submission of the enquiry report
during January-February, 2015. However, this Court has scanned the entire
length and breadth of the counter and it is unable to find out even an iota of
reason, much less a plausible and acceptable reason for the delay, which had
occasioned in the passing of the order of dismissal.
29. One more aspect, which transpires from the explanation submitted by
the 1
st
petitioner, which has a very great significance to the imputations levelled
against the petitioner is that the presumptive loss, which is alleged by the
respondents to have been caused by the 1
st
petitioner, all the documents have
been referred to u/s 47 (A) of the Registration Act and it is also evident from the
counter that in many cases amount to the tune of about Rs.40 Lakhs have been
realised by way of deficit stamp duty. When the amount has been collected by
way of deficit stamp duty by the respondents, the presumptive loss alleged
against the petitioner does not survive to that limited extent of the amount
mulcted on the petitioner’s head. Further, the decisions quoted above would
stand squarely attracted to this case, as the reference to the cases for realisation
21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.2662/2024
of deficit stamp duty u/s 47 (A) of the Registration Act has already been
undertaken and 50% the amounts has already been realised and, therefore, the
presumptive loss quantified by the respondents cannot be countenanced.
30. The inordinate delay in passing the order of dismissal by the 2
nd
respondent and the impugned proceedings of the 1
st
respondent confirming the
order passed by the 2
nd
respondent, which is devoid of any proper reasons, but is
merely an affirmation of the imaginary and threaded reasons given by the 2
nd
respondent coupled with the explanation offered by the petitioner, which shows
that of the presumptive loss alleged to have been caused by the petitioner, more
than 50% of the amount has been realised by way of deficit stamp duty and also
other materials pointed out by the petitioner in the explanation for which there is
no semblance of reason provided in the orders passed by the respondents while
imposing the punishment of dismissal, clearly narrates the extent of victimisation
that has gone through in the whole case against the 1
st
petitioner for reasons best
known to the department and the present impugned orders, passed hastily, is
merely a culmination of the safety net drawn by the respondents to safeguard
themselves from the wrath of this Court in the contempt petition filed by the 1
st
petitioner in non-compliance of the directions issued by this Court, all of which
22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.2662/2024
together lead this Court to the only clear opinion/view that the impugned order
of dismissal passed by the respondents against the 1
st
petitioner is grossly flawed
and smacks with mala fide intent and the same cannot be allowed to survive.
31. It is further to be pointed out that principles of natural justice warrants
an opportunity of personal hearing to be provided to the 1
st
petitioner in the
appellate stage when the extreme punishment of dismissal from service is
proposed to be inflicted on the 1
st
petitioner by the 1
st
respondent. Though it
may not be necessary at each and every stage of the proceeding to give an
opportunity of personal hearing, but if such a recourse is adopted, necessarily,
the order should reveal proper application of mind by giving proper reasons for
confirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority. However, except for
rephrasing the order passed by the disciplinary authority, the order of the 1
st
respondent does not reveal any application of mind or giving any reasoned order
and necessarily the said order could only be held to be an unreasonable order,
which necessitates interference.
32. Further, it is also to be pointed out with a heavy heart that a
Government servant gives his heart and soul to the job only with the object that
23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.2662/2024
in his retired life he would be the recipient of the pension and other retiral
benefits with which he could lead his life, though not comfortably, but atleast
with two meals and medicines a day in his ailing health. However, the inordinate
delay caused by the respondents in passing the order of dismissal and also the
delayed action taken against the 1
st
petitioner by way of the disciplinary
proceedings at the 11
th
hour, just three days before the retirement of the 1
st
petitioner, has robbed the 1
st
petitioner of his livelihood for which he had
rendered his service lifelong, which cannot be compensated by the respondents
in any manner and the only act of saving grace is through the orders of this Court
giving the benefit of the retiral benefits and pension to the 2
nd
petitioner, the
spouse of the 1
st
petitioner, so that she can atleast have the solace of leading a
respectable and undependable life.
33. For the reasons aforesaid, this writ petition is allowed and the
impugned order of dismissal passed by the 2
nd
respondent, as confirmed by the
1
st
respondent are set aside. The respondents are directed to disburse the retiral
benefits due and payable to the 1
st
petitioner, including the pension and all other
benefits till his life time and, thereafter, to pay the family pension to the 2
nd
petitioner, the wife of the 1
st
petitioner and such exercise of payment of retiral
24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.2662/2024
benefits, including the pension and family pension shall be drawn and disbursed
to the 2
nd
petitioner, less the subsistence allowance paid to the 1
st
petitioner,
within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
21.01.2026
Index : Yes / No
GLN
To
1.The Secretary to Government
Commercial Taxes & Registration Dept.
Government of Tamil Nadu
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Inspector General of Registration
100, Santhome High Road
Chennai 600 028.
25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.2662/2024
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
GLN
PRE-DELIVERY ORDER IN
W.P. NO. 2662 OF 2024
Pronounced on
21.01.2026
26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Legal Notes
Add a Note....