WP/5431/2022 of M.Karuppasamy Vs The State of Tamil Nadu on 14 October 2026

ORDER

The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order of the first respondent herein dated 27.12.2021 in G.O.(D) No.491, quash the same and consequently, direct the first respondent herein to release the pensionary and other retirement benefits of the petitioner in the post of Assistant Executive Engineer with effect from 01.06.2016.

2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present Writ Petition are that the petitioner was issued with a charge memorandum dated 19.07.2011 containing seven charges, for which the petitioner submitted his explanation. However, not being satisfied with the explanation, the disciplinary authority appointed an Enquiry Officer and the enquiry report was submitted on 30.04.2015. In the enquiry report, the Enquiry Officer, in categorical terms, held that none of the charges had been proved. However, the disciplinary authority differed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, vide proceedings dated 27.05.2016, and sought for an explanation from the petitioner as to why Charge Nos.3, 6 and part of Charge No.4 cannot be held to have been proved. For the same, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 18.07.2016.

2.1. However, after a lapse of three years, on 19.02.2019, the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of withholding a sum of Rs.1,000/- from his pension for a period of two years. Further, during the disciplinary proceedings, he was under suspension from 14.01.2011 to 22.07.2011 and he attained the age of superannuation on 31.05.2016. Therefore, seeking to set aside the punishment, he prayed for the release of his pensionary and other retirement benefits in the post of Assistant Executive Engineer with effect from 01.06.2016. Hence, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the materials available on record.

4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that out of seven charges, only Charge Nos.3, 4 and 6 were held to have been proved by the disciplinary authority, though the Enquiry Officer had rendered a finding that the charges had not been proved. The reasons assigned by the disciplinary authority for differing from the report of the Enquiry Officer are as follows:- “The illegal connection have happened even after the Delinquent Officer has joined in Virudhunagar Municipality. This has been pointed out during the inspection by Chief Engineer, Commissioner of Municipal Administration between 21.01.2011 and 29.01.2011. Hence, the charge 3 is held proved.”

5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first and second respondents would contend that, on inspection by the Additional Director of Municipal Administration, it was found that a large number of houses had been connected to the manholes in the underground sewage system. The learned Special Government Pleader would further contend that, though the Enquiry Officer had found that the charges were not proved, the disciplinary authority, while differing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, had complied with all the procedural formalities and only after obtaining the explanation from the petitioner, the punishment was imposed. It is the further submission of the learned Special Government Pleader that, having regard to the gravity, nature and circumstances of the charges, the petitioner was dealt with very leniently and only the punishment of withholding a sum of Rs.1,000/- from the pension for a period of two years was imposed.

5.1. The learned Special Government Pleader would further submit that the petitioner, being a responsible person, ought to have informed the Commissioner about the consequences of providing sewage connections and its impact upon the environment. Though the petitioner joined after the major portion of the underground sewage services had been completed, even after the petitioner joined the post at Virudhunagar, during his tenure, many connections were given, which were identified by the Additional Director of Municipal

Administration. Therefore, the findings rendered by the disciplinary authority cannot be faulted with. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the present Writ Petition.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side.

7. The sum and substance of Charge Nos.3, 4 and 6 is that, without completing the construction and commissioning of the STP, certain illegal sewer connections were made in Virudhunagar Municipality. Though the petitioner was the Municipal Engineer, he failed to detect such illegal sewer connections and cause their disconnection, which led to a health hazard situation in Virudhunagar Municipality. The defence of the petitioner is that those illegal connections were made prior to the petitioner joining the Virudhunagar Municipality.

8. The said fact is not in serious dispute. The petitioner joined the Virudhunagar Municipality on 28.07.2010. After joining as Municipal Engineer, within a period of five months, on 29.12.2010, he applied for medical leave. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was placed under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings on 14.01.2011 and the suspension was revoked and he was reinstated on 22.07.2011. Therefore, from the above dates and events, it is evident that though the petitioner joined the Virudhunagar Municipality on 28.07.2010, he did not function as Municipal Engineer from 29.12.2010 till 22.07.2011.

9. The Enquiry Officer, taking note of the above factual position, has held that the charges framed against the petitioner had not been proved, as there was no evidence to establish that the petitioner had given any illegal connections. In fact, the sewage connections were made only based upon the resolutions of the Municipal Corporation/Municipality and the instructions of the Commissioner. However, while closely perusing the charges, there is also a charge that the petitioner had failed to properly advise the Commissioner with regard to the implementation of the sewage project. The said factum was not seriously disputed by the respondents. The major portion of the service connections had been given before the petitioner joined the Virudhunagar Municipality. Even while differing with the opinion of the Enquiry Officer, as extracted above, the disciplinary authority had taken note of the fact that on 21.01.2011 and 29.01.2011, when the Director was conducting an inspection, it came to light that certain illegal connections had been made even after the delinquent officer had joined the Virudhunagar Municipality.

10. However, while looking into the charges, there is no specific charge against the petitioner that, even after he joined the Virudhunagar Municipality, he had provided any sewage connection. Further, while looking into the explanation given by the petitioner to the disciplinary authority against the differing view, he had elaborated upon the number of connections, the difficulties faced by the Municipality in disconnecting those connections, the pros and cons of such disconnection, the possibility of agitation by the public and his justification that it was impossible to disconnect the service connections en masse. However, while looking into the order of the disciplinary authority, it is seen that, while differing from the views of the Enquiry Officer and after seeking an explanation from the petitioner and receiving the same, without any discussion whatsoever, the disciplinary authority has simply referred to the instances of identifying certain connections after joining of the petitioner in the Virudhunagar Municipality. In my considered opinion, the same amounts to a perverse finding. The reasoning for a conclusion is an inexorable requirement. A conclusion without reasons is like a man without soul and lose it’s force as a binding order.

11. In the case in hand, the alleged information furnished by the Directorate of Municipal Administration on 21.01.2011 and 29.01.2011 relates to a period when the petitioner was under suspension. On a perusal of the charge memorandum and the records relied upon by the respondents, there are no records to show that the same had been furnished to the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the firm opinion that, in the absence of any specific charge, in the absence of any reasoning for rejecting the petitioner's explanation and when there is cogent reasoning given by the Enquiry Officer holding that the charges had not been proved, the finding rendered by the disciplinary authority cannot be sustained.

12. In view of the above detailed discussion, this Court is of the firm view that, without any rhyme or reason and without there being any basis, the disciplinary authority has erroneously differed from the report of the Enquiry Officer, which is nothing but perverse. Therefore, when the very differing opinion is found to be perverse and without there being any basis for the same, the subsequent punishment, that too without there being any detailed discussion, is liable to be interfered with.

13. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 27.12.2021 is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to release the pensionary and other retirement benefits of the petitioner in the post of Assistant Executive Engineer with effect from 01.06.2016, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. 14-10-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes KV To

1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Addl. Chief Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water supply (NP2 Department), Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

2. The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

3. The Commissioner, Virudhunagar Municipality, Virudhunagar.

C.KUMARAPPAN J. KV WP No. 5431 of 2022 14-10-2026