WA/1512/2024 of The Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nad Vs J Raja Sampath Kumar on 22 September 2026

JUDGMENT

(KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN,J.) The unsuccessful respondents in the writ petition are the appellants before this Court.

2. For better understanding, the parties will be referred to as per their status in the writ petition.

3. The writ petitioner / respondent herein filed W.P.No.11223 of 2023 for the following relief: ‘’……….to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 1st respondent culminating in his proceedings in G.O.(3D).No.26, Agriculture-Farmers Welfare (AA5) Department, dated 03.03.2023, quash the same and to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to pay the entire monetary benefits accrued with interest, with arrears of pension etc., to the petitioner herein within a reasonable period of time that may be stipulated by this Court’’.

4. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he joined the Agricultural Department of the Tamil Nadu Government as Depot Manager (Grade-III) on 18.05.1974 A.N. While he was working as Depot Manager (Grade-II) in Gummidipoondi from 06.11.1998 to 12.09.2002 in the Agricultural Extension Centre, he got a promotion as Depot Manager (Grade-I) at Tiruttani. Finally, he was transferred as Depot Manager (Grade-I) to the office of the 4th respondent. It is the further case of the petitioner that due to the non-cooperation of his subordinates, a monetary loss occurred. The petitioner further submitted that 13 charges were framed by the second respondent vide Charge Memo No. DCS 2/2/158809/2008, dated 24.11.2008.

5. It is the further case of the writ petitioner that in order to avoid further delay in settling his dues, he admitted the charges framed by the second respondent herein. The petitioner attained superannuation on 30.11.2008 A.N., but he was not allowed to retire on that day and was suspended due to the pendency of the departmental proceedings. Hence, he approached this Court by way of W.P. No. 26146 of 2022 for a mandamus directing the respondents to pass final orders in respect of the proceedings dated 24.11.2008. This Court allowed the writ petition on 29.09.2022, directing the respondents to pass final orders. The petitioner submitted that he sent a copy of the order on 10.10.2022 by registered post. In spite of this, no action was initiated on the part of the respondents. Hence, the petitioner filed Contempt Petition No. 465 of 2023.

Finally, the respondent passed the impugned order on 03.03.2023. The petitioner challenged the impugned order on the grounds that it was passed belatedly, power under Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 improperly applies and violated the principles of natural justice.

6. The respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit. The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder: ‘’6. It is submitted that the petitioner had misappropriated Government money and caused huge financial loss to the State's exchequer to a tune of Rs.4,20,932/- in the year 2003. Such misuse of his official powers to personal gain was brought to the light of the respondents by the audit authorities whom conducted the State Trading Scheme audit for the years 1999-2000 to 2005-2006. Upon which several objections were raised by the audit team stating that the petitioner had acted independently and had issued the agricultural inputs without proper billing. Therefore, the petitioner was held responsible for such lapses and it was recommended that the same be recovered from him. Non-compliance of the same by the petitioner led to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. ……….

8. It is further submitted that when the matter stood as such, the State Trading Scheme audit undertaken by the authorities concerned for the period from 1999-2000 to

2005-2006, in Gummidipoondi and Thiruthani Agricultural Extension Centres, raised several objections stating that the petitioner had made a huge loss to the State's exchequer to the tune of Rs.4,20,932/- way back then and the petitioner did not turn to repay such loss sustained by him. Therefore, for having misused his official powers to personal gain, the second / third respondent vide Charge Memo No.DCS2/2/158809/2008, dated: 24.11.2008, initiated disciplinary proceedings under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules against the petitioner and he was requested to submit his explanation for such grave misconduct.

9. With regard to the averments raised in Paragraph No.4, it is submitted that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner was pending, on the date of his superannuation (30.11.2008). Therefore, the second respondent herein, placed the petitioner under suspension as per Proceedings No.DCS2/2/158809/2008(1), dated: 28.11.2008. Furthermore, the second respondent vide Proceedings No.DCS2/2/158809/2008(2), dated: 28.11.2008, issued orders that the petitioner shall not be permitted to retire from Government service on 30.11.2008 instead retained him in the Government service until finality is reached in the said disciplinary proceedings.

10. It is submitted that the petitioner had made a huge loss to the State's exchequer and therefore became ineligible for receipt of Death Cum Retirement Gratuity as per Rule 69(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 and the same was followed by the respondents and therefore such act of the respondents is per se legitimate and the petitioner himself had admitted the above. Though the petitioner had made a huge loss to the State's exchequer, he was paid with appropriate allowances from time to time. Therefore, it is very clear that the act of the respondents is in accordance with the rules laid down. ………..

13. With regard to the averments raised in Paragraph No.6, it is submitted that the first respondent herein, after deliberations came to a consensus that for the proved charges for such misconduct and willful disobedience of the petitioner, it was decided to impose a pension cut of Rs.100/- for two years, thereby exercising the powers vested with the Government as per Rule 9(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. Further with regard to the pecuniary loss made by the petitioner, it was decided to recover the huge exchequer loss amount of Rs.4,20,932/- from his eligible DCRG amount of Rs.2,80,427/- and the balance outstanding amount of Rs.1,44,142/- due to the Government, to be set right thereby effecting recoveries viz., @ Rs.2,688/- per month for 53 months and Rs.1,784/- for the 54th month, following the procedures in Paragraph No.7(viii) in Chapter-V of the Manual of Handbook of disciplinary procedures and Rule 6(5) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. The same was intimated to the petitioner vide Letter No.27180/AA-5(2)/2010-15, dated: 08.05.2013, of the first respondent to have transparency in the advancement of the disciplinary proceedings, whom refused to accept the proposed punishment. Therefore, in every stage, the act of the respondents is in accordance with the statutory rules laid down.

7. The Writ Court, on the basis of the submissions made by the parties, allowed the writ petition, setting aside the order of punishment. The reasons given by the Writ Court are that having issued the charge memo in the year 2008 and filed the enquiry report in the year 2012, the disciplinary authority was sitting over the files all these years. Even in the recommendation of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, it was indicated that an opportunity should be given to the petitioner to find out if any rectification of defects had been done in the documents. Despite such a recommendation, a perusal of the impugned order indicates that no such opportunity was given to the petitioner. In fact, the enquiry proceeded as if the documents were not available. Furthermore, a copy of the recommendation of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission was not served on the petitioner. Non-serving of the copy violates the principles of natural justice, and imposing punishment after a long delay is contrary to law.

8. We heard the counsel for appellants and respondent.

9. The appellant framed 13 charges against the respondent herein and the same is are follows:

Charge 1:

1. Proceeding No.A-09/03-04, Dated.22.02.2005 of the Agriculture Development Officer, Gummidipoondi.

2. Interim order in W.P.No.25151/2005, dated.05.08.2005 of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras.

3. Letter No.A-450/2008, Dated.04.11.2008 of the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Gummidipoondi in 1999-2000. Charge 2:

1. State Trading Scheme Report Para No.7 of Gummidipoondi Agriculture.

2. Extension Center (Letter No.1089/2001/A1, dated.21.08.2001 of the Kanchipuram Assistant Director (Departmental Audit)

3. Stock Transfer Bill No.602673/21.3.2000 and 602658/13.12.1999. Charge 3:

1. Audit report para No.8 of the Gummidipoondi Agriculture Extension Center in 1999-2000.

2. Pages 227, 241, 244 of Gummidipoondi Agriculture Extension Center Stock Register Volume-60. Charge 4:

1. Audit Para No.4 in the year of 2000-2001 received vide Letter No.858-A1- 2002, dated.30.05.2002 of the Kanchipuram Assistant Director (Departmental Audit).

2. Stock Transfer Bill No.602686/31.08.2000. Charge 5:

1. Audit para No.7 of the Gummidipoondi Agriculture Extension Center in 2000-2001.

2. Stock Register Page No.69 of Volume 60. Charge 6:

1. Audit para No.14 of the Gummidipoondi Agriculture Extension Center in

2000-2001.

2. Departmental Contingency Bill No.7-00-01 and 08-00-01 (Agriculture Extension Center, Gummidipoondi). Charge 7:

1. Gummidipoondi Agriculture Extension Center Audit Para No.5 in the year of 2001-2002 received vide Letter No.894-A1-2003, dated.10.06.2003 of the Kanchipuram Assistant Director (Departmental Audit). Charge 8:

1. Audit para No.7 and 9 of the Gummidipoondi Agriculture Extension Center in 2001-2002. Charge 9:

1. Audit para No.10 of the Gummidipoondi Agriculture Extension Center in 2001-2002. Charge 10:

1. Thiruthani Agriculture Extension Center Audit Para No.11 in the year of 2004-2005 received vide Letter No.167-06-A1, dated.23.03.2006 of the Kanchipuram Assistant Director (Departmental Audit). Charge 11:

1. Thiruthani Agriculture Extension Center Audit Para No.11 in the year of 2005-2006 received vide Letter No.2707/A1/2006, dated.05.02.2007 of the Kanchipuram Assistant Director (Departmental Audit).

2. Bill No's.0485137-dated.24.03.2006, 0485153-dated.24.03.2006, 0485156- dated.29.03.2006. Charge 12:

1. Audit para No.14 of the Thiruthani Agriculture Extension Center in 2005- 2006. Charge 13: Proofs in Charges No.1 to 12.

ANNEXURE – IV List of witnesses by which the charges framed against Thiru. J. Raja Sampath Kumar, Formerly Depot Manager (Grade-2), Agricultural Extension Center, Gummidipoondi, Thiruvallur District, Now Depot Manager (Grade-1), Agricultural Extension Center, Maduranthagam, Kanchipuram District are proposed to be sustained.

10. In Paragraph 3 of the affidavit filed in the writ petition by the respondent herein, the respondent admitted the charges as follows: ‘’3. It is submitted that due to non-co-operation of my subordinates, there was monetary loss to the Government while I was working in Agriculture Extension Centres both at Gummidipoondi and Thiruthani, 14 charges were framed by the second respondent against me vide charge Memo No.DCS:2/2/158809/08 dated 24.11.2008, 2 charges were dropped. After I withdrew my earlier writ petition from this Hon'ble Court, in order to avoid further delay in settling my dues, I had admitted the charges framed by the second respondent herein.’’

11. The only contention raised by the respondent is with respect to the delay in passing the final order. This Court is conscious of the fact that there was a delay on the part of the Department in finalizing the punishment. However, the delay was properly explained in the counter-affidavit. There was a monetary loss to the Government, and considering the severity of the charges, the punishment imposed is minimal. The charges relate to the loss of public money, and the punishment is strictly in respect of the same.

12. We feel that the Writ Court erred in interfering with the punishment. In our view, when charges are admitted and there is a loss to the Government, delay alone cannot vitiate the punishment, especially when power is exercised under Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. In view of the above, we are inclined to allow the Writ Appeal.

13. In view of the above discussion, the order of the Writ Court in W.P. No. 11223 of 2023 dated 11.09.2023 is set aside. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed. The punishment imposed vide the impugned order dated 03.03.2023 is restored. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 24-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No rli

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J. rli To

1. The Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Agricultural Department, Chief Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

2. The Commissioner of Agriculture Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.

3. The Director of Agriculture Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.

4. The Joint Director of Agriculture Now Chengalpet District and Post.

5. The Assistant Director of Agriculture Agricultural Extension Centre, Maduranthakam Post Now Chengalpet District and Post. Pre-delivery judgment in

24-09-2026