WA/3422/2023 of S.SIVAJI Vs THE STATE OF TAMILNADU on 11 September 2026

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.) The present intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent has been instituted by the writ petitioner, challenging the order of dismissal passed by the Writ Court in W.P.No.4704 of 2021 dated 04.10.2023.

2. Appellant was working as Joint Commissioner in the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department and was allowed to retire from service on 31.03.2019 without prejudice to the departmental disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. A Charge Memo dated 25.03.2019 was served on the appellant under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The main charge against the appellant is that he disbursed the gratuity and terminal benefits due to one Mr. N. Aravazhi, Grade-I Executive Officer, who was imposed with the punishment of compulsory retirement, without informing the settlement to the Commissioner. The charge further states that the appellant had acted independently. The other two charges are consequential charges.

3. Appellant submitted his explanation narrating the compelling circumstances under which the terminal benefits and gratuity due to the said Mr.N.Aravazhi was settled by him in his capacity as Joint Commissioner, HR&CE Department, Vellore. The said Mr.N.Aravazhi submitted a representation before the Hon'ble Chief Minister cell and threatened the Joint Commissioner by stating that he will self-immolate by setting himself on fire. This fact was informed to the Commissioner, HR&CE, and the Commissioner, HR&CE, over phone, directed the appellant to settle the terminal benefits due to the said Mr.N.Aravazhi by following the procedure and verifying the particulars. Appellant, after verifying the service particulars, settled the pensionary benefits due to the said Mr.N.Aravazhi. Pertinently, there is no allegation of illegality or irregularity regarding the quantum of pensionary benefits settled or the procedure followed by the Joint Commissioner. The only allegation against the appellant was that he has not informed the Commissioner, HR&CE Department about the settlement of terminal benefits.

4. Initially, appellant filed a writ petition in W.P.No.9535 of 2019 challenging the charge memo. Learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition on 05.04.2019, since writ petition was filed soon after the issuance of the charge memo. Granting liberty to the petitioner to prove his innocence before the enquiry officer, the writ petition was dismissed. Thereafter, appellant submitted his detailed explanation on 10.06.2019 setting out the compelling circumstances under which he settled the terminal benefits in favour of Mr.N.Aravazhi. Not satisfied with the explanation, the Government issued G.O.(D) No.130, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments (RE.2.2) Department, dated 21.10.2019 appointing Mr. T. Udayachandran, I.A.S., Principal Secretary and Commissioner, Archaeology Department, as an Inquiry Officer to inquire into the charges against the appellant. The said Inquiry Officer had not commenced any enquiry. He kept the files pending. Thereafter, Government issued G.O.(D) No.18, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments (RE.2.2) Department, dated 02.02.2021 appointing Mr. T.P. Rajesh, I.A.S., Commissioner of Tourism as Inquiry Officer to inquire into the charges. The said Inquiry Officer also not commenced any inquiry nor issued any notice to the delinquent. Thirdly, the Government issued G.O. 146, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments (RE.2.2) Department dated 29.11.2021, appointing Mr.R.Kannan, I.A.S., Additional Commissioner, Archaeology Department as Inquiry Officer to inquire into the charges against the appellant. The said Inquiry Officer had not commenced any inquiry. Finally, the Government issued G.O.(D) No.85, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments (RE.2.2) Department, dated 27.04.2023 appointing Mrs.M.S.Haripriya, Additional Commissioner (Education and

Charitable Institutions), HR&CE Department as Inquiry Officer to inquire into the charges. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the said officer Mrs.M.S.Haripriya also retired from service without conducting any enquiry on attaining her age of superannuation. Even after completion of three years from the appointment of Mrs.M.S.Haripriya, no further development took place in the matter of conduct of departmental enquiry.

5. When the facts stand as stated above, question before this Court is, whether the impugned Charge Memo can be sustained. No doubt, a writ against a Charge Memo is normally not entertained. But, a writ may be entertained, if the Charge Memo has been issued by an incompetent authority having no jurisdiction, or is tainted with allegations of mala fides, or the charges are completely vague and incapable of being proceeded with under the Discipline and Appeal Rules. On these limited grounds, the validity of a Charge Memo can be tested by the Courts. However, Courts are not expected to adjudicate the merits involved in the allegations set out in the charge memo. In the event of adjudication of merits, it may cause prejudice to either of the parties. In the context of the above grounds, the facts of the present case are to be examined.

6. In the present case, reading of the charges would show that there is no irregularity or illegality in settling the terminal and pensionary benefits due to Mr.N.Aravazhi, Grade-I Executive Officer. There is no allegation of excess payment or procedural violation in settling the terminal benefits. The only allegation is that appellant had not informed about the settlement of terminal benefits to the Commissioner, HR&CE Department. In this context, appellant has submitted an explanation stating that compelling circumstances made him settle the terminal benefits. However, he informed the said fact to the Commissioner who, in turn, orally granted permission to the appellant to settle the terminal benefits over phone. This averment was made in the sworn affidavit filed by the appellant both in the writ petition and before this Court. The oral permission given by the Commissioner was not seriously disputed by the Department in the counter statement filed. The said averment was not even met by the Department in their counter. Therefore, it is made clear that the said officer Mr.N.Aravazhi made an attempt to commit suicide in front of the Joint Commissioner's office at Vellore. Immediately, the Joint Commissioner contacted the Commissioner, who in turn, orally permitted the appellant, to settle the terminal benefits to Mr.N.Aravazhi. However, the terminal benefits due to the said officer was settled in accordance with the Rules and after verifying the service records of the said officer. There is no allegation of irregularity or illegality in settling the terminal and pensionary benefits due to the said officer Mr.N.Aravazhi.

7. In the context of the above facts, further question arises whether charges framed under Rule 17(b) for grave misconduct can be sustained. Presuming that appellant has not informed the settlement of pensionary benefits to the Commissioner, it is to be construed as a minor lapse. Thus, charges under Rule 17(a) ought to have been framed. Contrarily, 17(b) charges were framed and four Enquiry Officers were appointed on different spells. None of those officers conducted any enquiry and there is a long delay of seven years that has lapsed from the date of issuance of charge memo. Appellant, though allowed to retire, is unable to get his terminal and pensionary benefits.

8. Appellant has been denied terminal and pensionary benefits for the past about six years, on account of the fact that he settled the terminal benefits to another officer of the Department, namely Mr.N.Aravazhi, Grade-I Executive Officer.

9. In the present case, the charges are also not specific. The charges are vague and not based on any concrete evidence. It appears to be a mere procedural lapse, that is, not informing the settlement of terminal benefits to the Commissioner, HR & CE Department. The explanation submitted by appellant appears to be reasonable and, that apart, the Commissioner, as per the appellant, had granted oral permission through phone to settle the terminal benefits due to compelling reasons.

10. In such peculiar facts, Courts have to consider whether such minor procedural lapses are condonable or uncondonable. Certain mistakes committed while performing official duties, if found to be minor and negligible and not causing any prejudice to the Department, then such minor mistakes are to be construed as condonable mistakes. That apart, any minor mistake contrary to the procedure, it is to be treated as condonable. The principles regarding condonable mistakes are recognized by the Courts, taking note of certain peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Even presuming in such nature of cases, there is no possibility of imposing any penalty, since the charge does not appear to be grave or punishable. It is only a mistake committed on account of certain compelling circumstances and that too, after securing oral permission from the Commissioner, HR & CE Department.

11. That apart, there is an enormous delay. Even after a lapse of seven years from the date of retirement of appellant, the enquiry proceedings have not been commenced. No progress has been made in

the enquiry proceedings. Mere delay may not be a ground to quash the entire charges. But in certain facts and circumstances, if the charges are found to be vague and incapable of being proceeded with, then the Courts can consider the delay along with other grounds for quashing the charge memorandum issued by the Department. However, it is made clear that mere delay cannot be a ground, and further, Department must be in a position to explain the delay caused for conducting the enquiry.

12. In view of the fact that appellant retired from service on 31.03. 2019 and four Enquiry Officers were appointed who, had not conducted any enquiry for the past about seven years, and further considering the fact that charges are vague and the allegation against the appellant is only a “mistake” and cannot be construed as “misconduct” warranting disciplinary proceedings under the Discipline and Appeal Rules, this Court is inclined to interfere with the Writ Court order impugned.

13. This Court is inclined to direct the respondents to settle all the terminal and pensionary benefits due to the appellant within a period of twelve week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

14. It is made clear that this judgment quashing the charge memo considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, need not be followed as precedent for quashing of the charge memo or departmental disciplinary proceedings.

15. Accordingly, Writ Court order impugned dated 04.10.2023 passed in W.P.No.4704 of 2021 is set aside and the Writ Appeal stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 11-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No GD To

1. Additional Chief Secretary to Government Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 9.

2. The Commissioner Principal Secretary to Government Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai 34.

3. Principal Secretary and Commissioner Archaelogy Department, Tamil Development Campus, Egmore, Chennai 8.

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J. GD WA No. 3422 of 2023 11-09-2026