WP/32191/2023 of K.SRINIVASAN Vs GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU on 17 September 2026

ORDER

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 08.02.2022 and the appeal order dated 25.04.2023.

2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the writ petition is that, the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Engineer on 13.01.1999 and he was transferred to Krishna Water Supply Project Division during 2005. While he was serving in the above project, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner and other officers, those who were involved in the Dam project. Later on, the petitioner was suspended from service and also a joinder of charge memorandum was issued to him. Though a criminal case was registered against him, later on the same ended in acquittal in C.C.No.8 of 2011 vide order dated 27.04.2016. Whereas, there was a parallel departmental proceedings, in which an Enquiry Officer was appointed during 2008 and he has submitted the enquiry report during 2014. Thereafter, the petitioner was dismissed from service on 27.05.2019. Since the dismissal order is a non speaking order, the same was set aside and directed to pass a speaking order. In pursuance thereof, the impugned order has been passed on 08.02.2022 imposing a punishment of compulsory retirement. The Reviewing Authority vide order dated 25.04.2023 has also confirmed the punishment imposed upon the petitioner.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 & 3.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that having the criminal prosecution ended in an acquittal, the departmental proceedings must also be dropped as both criminal and departmental proceedings are on the basis of similar set of charges, the documents and witnesses, therefore, contended that the imposition of punishment is contrary to law. Furthermore, the witnesses have not supported the charges and even the report of the Superior Officer have not been considered by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority. It is also the contention of the learned counsel that the petitioner was only assigned with the duty of measurement. Therefore, he cannot be blamed for causing loss to the public exchequer. It is also his contention that the petitioner has measured only in respect of four gates. But, if any payment is made for 7 gates, he being the person who had only measured the gates, cannot be faulted. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that the engineers those who are responsible for the payment were exonerated from all the charges, whereas this petitioner, who has no role in sanctioning the amount, was singled out and imposed with the punishment illegally. Hence, prayed to set aside the impugned order.

5. Per contra, the said contention was stoutly objected by the learned Special Government Pleader and would contend that the petitioner was an Assistant Engineer and the entire settlement of money to the contractor was based upon the measurement recorded by him. The measurements are fundamental and paramount to pay the payment to the contractors. It is also his contention that the petitioner has mentioned false and bogus measurements. Having mentioned the false and bogus measurement, the petitioner cannot seek any leniency. He would further submit that the contention of the petitioner that the two engineers, who were exonerated from the charges were in-charge of the Spillways No.1, 2 and 3, but those work were partially executed at the time of evaluation. Therefore, the petitioner cannot seek similarity as that of the other two engineers. It is also the contention of the Special Government Pleader that, in the earlier Writ Petition, this Court has confirmed the guilt recorded by the Disciplinary Authority in respect of the co-delinquent in WP.No.3033 of 2014 & 29701/2016 [S.Ayyanan Vs. The Secretary to Government and another dated 27.06.2023]. Therefore, the petitioner cannot expect any different view. It was also the contention of the learned Special Government Pleader that, mere acquittal in the criminal case would in no way automatically entail the petitioner to have an exoneration, as the proof before the Disciplinary Authority is only based upon the preponderance of probability. Hence, prayed to dismiss the present writ petition.

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

7. While looking into the factual position, the petitioner was mulcted with 5 charges and all the charges are in respect of failure to record the actual measurement and thereby, causing loss to the tune of Rs.1,20,80,231/-. In view of not recording the accurate measurement and due to the collusion between the petitioner and the co-delinquent, according to the respondent the public money was wrongly paid to the contractor before the work was completed and thereby, the petitioner has committed a grave irregularity.

8. The main ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the petitioner has only measured the work and he has not involved in the payment. The learned counsel for the petitioner has very much relied upon the exoneration of Mr.Natarajan and Mr.Mahalingam. But, here the Disciplinary Authority took cognisance in respect of the false entry made in the M-book. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently urge before this Court that the petitioner has only measured the work done, and cannot be blamed for the loss caused to the pubic exchequer, there was finding that he made false entry in the M.Book. As he being the responsible Government Officer, has to maintain the highest integrity in his work.

9. In this case, according to the evidence and documents adduced before the “Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings” [hereinafter called “TDP”], the TDP has arrived at a conclusion that a false entry made in the M-book has been proved. Though the petitioner has taken a defence that at the relevant point of time, it was not 7 gates and it was only 4 gates, now the issue is, whether he fabricated the measurement or not?. In this regard, though the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in the criminal case, the petitioner has been acquitted, while looking into the Criminal Court judgment, the Criminal Court has gone into the micro level contradictions between the witnesses regarding the quantum of loss, and held that the charge has not been proved beyond reasonable doubts. In a criminal prosecution, even an iota of doubt will result in acquittal. It is well settled principle of law that in a criminal case, the proof is beyond reasonable doubt. Whereas, in the disciplinary proceedings the proof is only the preponderance of probability.

10. Now, from the Disciplinary Authority’s report and the discussion made thereon, this Court could able to find that there are materials available against the petitioner and the findings are based upon such material. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has attempted to argue that the findings are perverse, this Court is not in agreement with the submissions, as there are sufficient material available in the Disciplinary Authority’s report. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there are documents to show that the measurements have been correctly given. However, the findings rendered by the TDP is based upon the witness viz., the Superior Officer to the petitioner. Even though certain documents have been filed, the petitioner is not in a position to demonstrate as to how the findings rendered by the Disciplinary Authority becomes perverse?.

11. Here, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and others reported in (2024) 1 SCC 175. In the instant case, according to the allegation, apart from he involved in corruption, the very conduct attributed to him viz., making certain false entry in the records, which has been proved before the Disciplinary Authority. The same is sufficient to prove the charge against him. As already stated, since the standard of proof before the Disciplinary Authority is only preponderance of probability and when such preponderance of probability has been fully satisfied in the present case, mere acquittal will in no way advance the case of the petitioner. Therefore, the above reported judgment is not applicable to the facts of the case. In a similar line, the learned counsel for the petitioner would also rely upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in G.M.Tank Vs. State of Gujarat and others reported in (2006) 5 SCC 446 and Constable Uma Shankaran Vs. Union of India and others reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1115.

12. At this juncture, it is relevant to discuss the contours of the judicial review. In B.C.Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows. The relevant paragraphs are paragraphs 12 & 18 and the same read as follows:-

“12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case.

13. ..............

14. ...............

15. ...............

16. ................

17. ................

18. A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact- finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof. (Emphasis supplied by this Court)

13. In Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) Vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava reported in (2021) 2 SCC 612, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the decision is against the natural justice, then the same can be interfered. The relevant paragraphs are paragraphs 25 & 29 and the same read as follows:- “25. It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the Constitutional Courts, is an evaluation of the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The Court/Tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with the Rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory Rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority if based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached or where the conclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued. To sum up, the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact.

26. ......

27. .......

28. ........

29. The Constitutional Court while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review Under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of malafides or perversity, i.e., where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at that findings and so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained.” Through the above judgments, the following principles are emerging:-

(i) Power of Judicial review is not like an appeal. But such power is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and to ensure the compliance of natural justice.

(ii) The power of judicial review is not like an appellate remedy to substitute its own finding, unless the findings of the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority is perverse and without evidence.

(iii) The High Court had no jurisdiction to review the penalty, unless it is shockingly disproportionate.

(iv) Since because there is a possibility to arrive at yet another finding, cannot be a reason to substitute the finding of the disciplinary Authority.

(v) The judicial review is meant only to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion.

(vi) While exercising the power of judicial review, so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained.

14. In the case in hand, though the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised some defences, as discussed hereinabove, even for argument sake such defence is accepted, it would only give an alternative finding, but the same will in no way make the findings rendered by the Disciplinary Authority becomes perverse. Therefore, this Court does not find any merits in the present writ petition.

15. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected WMPs are also closed. 17-09-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes KMI To

1. Government Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By The Additional Chief Secretary To Government Water Resources (E1) Department Secretariat Chennai 09

2. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Rep. By Its Secretary TNPSC Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town Chennai 600 003.

3. The Engineer - In - Chief WRD And Chief Engineer (General) PWD Chepauk Chennai 600 005.

C.KUMARAPPAN J. KMI WP No. 32191 of 2023 AND WMP NOS. 33374 OF 2026, 31790 OF 2023 & 31791 OF 2023 17-09-2026