WP/12074/2026 of T.KAMARAJ Vs The Registrar General on 11 September 2026

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) The present writ petition has been instituted challenging the order of punishment dated 13.06.2025, passed by the first respondent imposing punishment of stoppage of Increment for one year with cumulative effect. Facts in brief:

2. The writ petitioner was working as a Grade II Bench Clerk. Departmental disciplinary proceeding was initiated and a charge memo has been issued vide proceeding dated 08.09.2015. Charges are relating to missing of case bundles and certain original documents kept in Court hall. The writ petitioner submitted his explanation denying the charges. Not satisfied with the explanation, the disciplinary authority appointed an enquiry officer, who in turn conducted a domestic enquiry and submitted his final report on 21.11.2020, holding that the charge relating to missing of case bundles has not been proved. However, he made a finding that the delinquent officer is responsible for dereliction of duty and negligence. The enquiry officer submitted his final report to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority, instead of taking a decision on the findings of the enquiry report, has passed an order vide proceeding dated 21.10.2021, thereby holding that enquiry report is a haphazard report and would jeopardise the fair investigation and also the litigant public. He scrapped the enquiry report and ordered for a fresh domestic enquiry. The disciplinary authority arrived at a conclusion that the enquiry report be set aside and a de novo enquiry be ordered. Another enquiry officer was appointed to conduct an enquiry into the charges afresh.

2.1. A second enquiry was conducted by the newly appointed enquiry officer, who in turn submitted his final report on 09.09.2022, holding that all the charges against the writ petitioner are held proved. Accepting the findings in the second enquiry report, the disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice and on receipt of the explanation from the writ petitioner, final order in the departmental disciplinary proceedings was issued vide proceeding dated 27.03.2023, imposing the punishment of dismissal from service. The writ petitioner preferred an appeal to the High court. The High Court found that the punishment of dismissal from service is not in proportionate with the gravity of the proved charges. That apart, the High Court considered the fact that the co-delinquent Muthulakshmi was imposed with the punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect. Considering the punishment imposed on the said Muthulakshmi, co-delinquent, the punishment of dismissal from service in the case of the writ petitioner was modified as stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect. The said order passed by the Registrar General, High Court, came to be challenged in the present writ petition.

Contentions of the petitioner:

3. Mr.P.Mohanraj, appearing on behalf of the writ Petitioner would mainly contend that the disciplinary authority has violated the procedures as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Conduct of second enquiry on the same set of charges are not contemplated under the Rules. That apart, in the first enquiry report, the main charge regarding missing of case bundles are not proved. Therefore, conduct of the second enquiry is not only a procedural violation, but the disciplinary authority pre-determined the punishment and conducted the second enquiry. The appellate authority also has not considered the said ground. Thus, the writ petition is to be allowed. Contentions of the respondents:

4. Mr.M.Kempraj, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose by stating that the charges are grave in nature. 97 case bundles and five original promissory notes were found missing from the Court hall. In respect of serious charges, the disciplinary authority thought it fit and ordered for a second enquiry in order to find out the correct facts. Second enquiry was ordered in view of the fact that the report of the first enquiry officer was not satisfactory. In the second enquiry, it is found that the charges are held proved. Thus, the major penalty of dismissal from service was imposed. However, the appellate authority taking note of the punishment imposed on the co-delinquent, Muthulakshmi, modified the punishment to that of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect. Since a lenient view had already been taken by the appellate authority, the present writ petition is to be rejected.

Discussion:

5. Perusal of the charges would show that case bundles were missing in the Court hall of the Subordinate Court, Dharapuram. Five original promissory notes were also missing. The writ petitioner was working as Grade II Bench Clerk in the said Subordinate Court. However, the first enquiry officer conducted a detailed enquiry by examining the documents and witnesses and made a finding that the charges relating to bundles missing in the Court hall are not proved. However, the findings of the enquiry officer is that the writ petitioner is responsible for dereliction of duty and negligence. Not satisfied with the findings of the first enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority ordered for a second enquiry. The findings made by the disciplinary authority in his order dated 21.10.2021 ordering de novo enquiry are that the report of the first enquiry officer is a haphazard report and would jeopardise the fair investigation and the litigant public. On the said ground, the first enquiry report has been scrapped. He ordered for a fresh enquiry. Though he ordered for a fresh enquiry, in the concluding paragraph, the disciplinary authority states that the enquiry report is set aside and a de novo enquiry is ordered.

5.1. Question arises whether the findings made by the disciplinary authority on the report of the first enquiry officer as well as setting aside of the first enquiry report and ordering for de novo enquiry is in accordance with the procedures contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.

5.2. Two domestic enquiries on the same charge memo is impermissible. However, the disciplinary authority is empowered to disagree with the findings of the enquiry officer. If at all, there is any failure on the part of the enquiry officer to consider certain documents and evidences, then the disciplinary authority is well within his powers to disagree with the findings of the enquiry officer and by recording reasons for such disagreement, a show cause notice to be issued to the delinquent officer asking him to submit further explanation on the dissenting view.

5.3. De novo enquiry would arise only if there is any procedural or substantial error in conducting a domestic enquiry. If the disciplinary authority, on perusal of the enquiry report forms an opinion that there is a procedural violation or substantial error in appreciating documents and evidences or omission to follow certain mandatory procedures, then the disciplinary authority has to order for de novo enquiry from the place from which the error occurred. However, there cannot be any order to conduct a fresh re-enquiry. Fresh enquiry to be conducted from the place from which the error occurred.

Even in such circumstances, the disciplinary authority need not set aside the entire enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer. Therefore, the de novo enquiry cannot be ordered so as to conduct a fresh enquiry in entirety that will amount to conduct of second enquiry into the same set of charges and impermissible.

5.4. In the present case, the findings of the disciplinary authority that the enquiry report of the first enquiry officer is haphazard report and would jeopardise the fair investigation would show that the disciplinary authority has pre-determined the nature of the charges as well as the punishment and set aside the report of the first enquiry officer and ordered for second enquiry under the guise of de novo enquiry. The concept of de novo enquiry cannot be pressed for conducting a fresh second enquiry. There is a distinction between de novo enquiry and second enquiry. Error crept in during the course of enquiry or non consideration of certain material documents during the course of enquiry may lead to conduct of de novo enquiry from the place from which the error occurred. But, if the entire enquiry report is scrapped and the disciplinary authority order for a fresh enquiry by appointing a different enquiry officer, then this Court has no option, but to arrive at a conclusion that it is a case of second enquiry, which is impermissible under law.

5.5. The disciplinary authority not only stopped by scrapping the first enquiry report, but appointed a new enquiry officer as well as the presenting

officer to conduct a fresh enquiry. The proceedings dated 21.10.2021 issued by the disciplinary authority on receipt of the first enquiry report is unambiguous that he has not only pre-determined the issue, but decided to conduct a fresh enquiry by appointing a new enquiry officer and a presenting officer.

5.6. Pursuant to the said order, the second enquiry officer conducted another enquiry on the same set of charges by re-examining the same witnesses and documents and made a finding that all the charges are proved against the writ petitioner. Accepting the findings of the enquiry officer, major punishment of dismissal from service was imposed vide proceedings dated 27.03.2023. In the appeal, the High Court modified the punishment of dismissal from service to that of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect only on the ground that punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect was imposed on the co- delinquent, Muthulakshmi. On the said ground, the punishment of dismissal was modified. Even equal punishment was not granted. Lesser punishment was imposed on the writ petitioner. The entire procedure followed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority does not appear to be in consonance with the procedures established in conducting the departmental disciplinary proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.

Conclusion:

6. In view of the above discussions, the impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 13.06.2025, in ROC No.70530/2023/C1, is set aside and the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 11-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SLI To

1. The Registrar General, High Court, Madras, Chennai - 600 104.

2. The Principal District Judge, Tiruppur - 641 604.

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J. SLI WP No. 12074 of 2026 11-09-2026