WA/792/2024 of THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY Vs R.SHANMUGAM(DIED ) 1. Madhammal on 15 September 2026

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.) Under assail is the writ order 14.03.2022 made in WP No.14127 of 2013. State preferred the present writ appeal.

2. The respondent Late R.Shanmugam was working as Village Assistant in Nanjithalavaipalayam Village Erode Taluk, Erode District for the period from 15.01.1988 to 15.02.2008. An amount of Rs.80,940/- was collected towards land revenue, additional water cell and 2C Tree tax by the Village Administrative Officer concern during the years 2005 to 2008 and the amount was handed over to the Village Assistant/respondent on various dates for remittance of the amount into Treasury / Bank concern. But the amount was not remitted into the Government and the Village Assistant has embezzled the amount and submitted bogus receipts on various dates by way of using forged Bank seal and putting his forged signatures in the challan and the authority of the Bank staff. During the reconciliation, it was found that the amount was embezzled by the Village Assistant and a report was submitted by the Tahsildar Erode, by proceedings dated 20.02.2008 to the District Collector, Erode. Tahsildar, Erode has lodged a complaint on 16.02.2008 at the police station, Karunkalpalayam, Erode Taluk against the Village Assistant for the alleged criminal offences committed by him. Police conducted an enquiry and filed FIR in crime No.109 of 2008, dated 16.02.2008 under Sections 408, 467,

468, 471 and 472 of IPC. The respondent/Village Assistant was arrested on 18.02.2008 and remanded to judicial custody. Simultaneously, departmental disciplinary proceedings were initiated and he was suspended vide proceedings dated 16.02.2008. Consequently, charges were framed vide proceeding dated 23.07.2008 under rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The respondent submitted his explanations. Not satisfied with the explanations, an enquiry officer was appointed, who in turn conducted an enquiry by affording an opportunity to the respondent and submitted a final report holding that the charges for misappropriation are held proved. The findings of the enquiry officer were accepted by the disciplinary authority and by providing further opportunity to submit explanations on the finding of the enquiry officer, a final order in the departmental disciplinary proceedings was issued, imposing the penalty of removal from service. Appeal filed by the respondent before the Additional Principal Secretary and the Commissioner of Revenue Administration was rejected vide proceedings dated 07.03.2013. Thus, the writ petition came to be instituted.

3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the appellants would contend that the procedures as contemplated under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules were scrupulously followed. Charges are grave in nature. Misappropriation of Government funds by fraudulently creating forged documents were established during the course of enquiry. The disciplinary authority accepting the findings of the enquiry officer, imposed the punishment of removal from service. The Appellate Authority also rejected the appeal. However, the writ Court made a finding that the Appellate Authority has not considered the grounds raised by the delinquent officer in detail. The writ Court allowed the writ petition only on the ground that “the grounds were carefully perused and there are no acceptable explanations”. Based on the said finding of the Appellate Authority, the writ Court set the side the order of removal from service and imposed the modified punishment of compulsory retirement.

4. Presuming that the Appellate Authority has not considered all the grounds, the matter ought to have been remanded back to the authority for fresh consideration. Contrarily, the writ Court imposed the modified punishment of compulsory retirement on the ground that the respondent was no more at the time of passing the final orders.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent would oppose by stating that domestic enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the procedures as contemplated. Neither the documents nor the evidence was examined. In the absence of any such evidence and examination during the course of enquiry, the order of removal cannot be sustained and on that ground, the writ Court allowed the writ petition by modifying the punishment of removal from service into that of compulsory retirement.

6. This Court has considered the rival submissions made between the parties to the lis.

7. The scope of judicial review on discipline matters are to be restricted to determine whether,

a) The rules of natural justice have been complied with.

b) Finding of misconduct is based on some evidence.

c) The statutory rules governing the conduct of disciplinary enquiry have been observed.

d) Whether the findings of the disciplinary authority suffer from perversity.

e) The penalty is disproportionate to proven misconduct.

8. Criminal case and departmental disciplinary proceedings are distinct and different. Departmental disciplinary proceeding are not dependent on the criminal proceedings. Strict Proof is required to convict a person under criminal law. However, no such strict proof is required to punish a Government employee under the departmental disciplinary proceedings. Preponderance of probabilities are sufficient to impose penalty. Therefore, acquittal in a criminal case would not be a ground to seek exoneration from the departmental disciplinary proceedings.

9. Regarding the scope of judicial review, this court has to examine whether the procedures as contemplated under the Discipline and Appeal Rules were scrupulously followed. Perusal of the charges would show that it is a case of misappropriation of government funds. Further allegation is that the respondent had forged the bills, receipts by putting signatures and through bogus seal was established. Therefore, the charges are grave in nature and therefore, domestic enquiry was conducted. Enquiry was conducted by affording an opportunity to the delinquent officer. He participated in the proceedings and defended his case. The enquiry officer submitted a report stating that the charges relating to misappropriation of funds are held proved and that apart, he has created bogus receipts on various dates by way of using forged Bank seal and putting his forged signatures in the challan as the authority of the bank staff. Therefore, it is not only a case of misappropriation, but misappropriation was done by way of forging the signature, receipts and documents. Order of disciplinary authority passed in detail would show that the defence taken by the respondent was considered on each count. The documents were verified by the enquiry officer. The statements of the Revenue Officials, Village Administrative Officers were recorded. Based on the statements and by scrutinizing the documents available, the enquiry officer held that the charges are proved. The finding of the enquiry officer was accepted by the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority made a finding that charges of misappropriation by creating bogus receipts and challans etc., are serious in nature and accordingly, imposed a punishment of removal from service. A reading of the Appellate Authority’s order would show that the grounds raised by the delinquent officer were independently considered. The Appellate Authority has also recorded the explanations submitted by the delinquent officer as well as the findings made by the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority. The Appellate Authority has independently considered the Appeal. The decision of the enquiry officer and disciplinary authority were independently considered. Once the disciplinary authority and the Appellate Authority aggrieved with the findings of the enquiry officer, then there is no need to give any further opinion or views. Only in the event of disagreement, the disciplinary authority or the Appellate Authority have to record the reasons. Therefore, the Appellate Authority not recording all the reasons per se would not constitute a ground to set aside the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority.

10. In the present case, the rules of natural justice has been complied with. Enquiry was conducted by following the procedures as contemplated under the Rules. The findings of misconduct by the enquiry officer in his report is based on some evidence. It was made based on the statements of the Revenue Officer and Village Administrative Officer as well as the documents examined during the course of enquiry. Statutory Rules governing the conduct of disciplinary proceedings have been observed in the present case. Perusal of the orders would show that there is no perversity warranting interference in exercise of the powers of judicial review by this Court. Finally, regarding proportionality of the punishment, the proved charges are undoubtedly grave in nature. It is a case of misappropriation of Government funds by creating forged receipts and challans etc., and any leniency by the Courts in exercise of the powers under Article 226 would result in bad precedent. Misplaced sympathy in such cases of misappropriation of Government funds is also not desirable and the Courts have reiterated so.

11. For all these reasons, this Court does not find any sufficient reasons for allowing the writ petition by the writ Court in the order impugned. Consequently, the order impugned dated 14.03.2022, passed in WP No.14127 of 2013 is set aside and the writ appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 15-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SLI

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J. SLI WA No. 792 of 2024 and CMP No.5353 of 2024 15-09-2026