WP/28874/2023 of V.BALASUBRAMANI Vs GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU on 10 September 2026

ORDER

The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present writ petition is that, the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Engineer, PWD as early as 24.10.1984, later on, he was promoted as an Assistant Executive Engineer with effect from 26.12.2005. In the meanwhile, an FIR

was registered against the petitioner under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Subsequently, instead of proceeding the Criminal prosecution, the disciplinary proceedings was initiated before the “Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings” [hereinafter called “TDP”]. In the TDP enquiry, the petitioner and other two persons were found guilty of the charges and ultimately, the Disciplinary Authority have compulsorily retired the petitioner vide impugned order dated 07.07.2020. Aggrieved with the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the occurrence took place during the financial year 2008-2009, and that the petitioner was suspended during 2019 and was not permitted to retire on 31.03.2019. Ultimately, the impugned order was passed on 07.07.2020. It is the specific submission of the learned counsel that, though TDP has concluded the enquiry and submitted the report before the Government as early as on 05.11.2015, there was delay to call for the explanation from the petitioner and that the petitioner has given the explanation on 03.01.2017. But, again with a delay the final order was passed on 07.07.2020. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the charges are vague and that the delay at every stage would vitiate the entire proceedings. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the impugned order is not a speaking order. He would also submit that the Disciplinary Authority has to answer every ground, whereas the Disciplinary Authority has not at all answer the petitioner’s grounds. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the following judgements:-

1. Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and others reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570;

2. Bhupinderpal Singh Gill Vs. State of Punjab and others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 113;

3. S.Balasubramanian Vs. The District Collector and others [WA.No.2924 of 2019 dated 12.09.2019]. 4(a). Per contra, the said contention was stoutly objected by the learned Special Government Pleader and would contend that the petitioner has involved in the corruption charges and that they have misappropriated huge amount in the project of construction of retaining wall at Parambikulam at Keelamuthudaiyanpatti and thereby, they have caused loss to the public exchequer to the tune of Rs.10.00 lakhs. It is the contention of the learned Special Government Pleader that instead of constructing retaining wall, they have arbitrarily constructed sluice and fraudulently reported to the District

Panchayat Secretary, Pudukkottai on 02.09.2008 that they have constructed only retaining wall.

(b) .The TDP has arrived at a conclusion after examining 8 witnesses and relying upon 26 documents and therefore, the finding of TDP is based upon the evidence and documents. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that certain alleged procedural lapses, they are not sufficient to bring out the impugned order become perverse. It is also the contention of the learned Special Government Pleader that the contours of the judicial review is very limited and while exercising the power of judicial review, this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence. The learned Special Government Pleader would submit that though certain delays in the disciplinary proceedings, no prejudice has been shown. Therefore, the question of interfering with the impugned order on the ground of delay does not arise. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

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

6. The first and foremost ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is in respect of the absence of any reason in the impugned order. The learned counsel would rely upon paragraph 7 of the impugned order and would submit that the Disciplinary Authority has simply relied upon the enquiry officer’s report without any detailed discussion. To put it differently, the order is vitiated by its crypticness.

7. This Court is not in a position to accept the above submission. While harmoniously reading the impugned order, the Disciplinary Authority has taken congnizance of charge, explanation, enquiry report and has independently assessed the enquiry report in the backdrop of the further representation of the petitioner and in paragraph 5 has observed as follows:- “5.The Government carefully and independently examined the charges framed against Thiru.V.Balasubramani, Assistant Executive Engineer (under suspension and not allowed to retire on 31.03.2019 AN). Water Resources Department, written statement of defence submitted by the delinquent officer, findings of the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Tiruchirappalli and further representation of the delinquent officer on the findings of the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings in detail and found that the delinquent officer in collusion with his superior and subordinate, caused loss to the Government by improperly executing the work of construction of retaining walls in various tanks in Pudukkottai and thw work of desilting of supply cananls to the tanks, in violation of the instructions in Government Orders. The delinquent officer in his defence statement did not deny the fact that the works of desilting of tanks had been carried out in violation of the instructions in Government Orders, but he put forth evasive and invalid arguments, such as the Panchayat Union kept quiet without making any queries to the contractor or to the accused, there were no queries by the audit till date, the investigation officer made investigation and enquiry without an FIR. Though the delinquent officer made counter arguments to the depositions of all the Prosecution Witnesses, he failed to counter the deposition of the vital Prosecution Witness 4 Thiru.V.Vivekanandan, Superintending Engineer, Highways Department, who super-check-measured the works and arrived at the loss caused to the Government. It was clearly evident that estimates for the works of construction of retaining walls in the tanks were prepared by the delinquent officers in violation of the instructions in the Government order and major portion of the funds were allotted for the work of desilting. The Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Tiruchirappalli, after discussing the arguments threadbare, rejected all the contentions made by the delinquent officer in his written statement of defence submitted before the Tribunal. The further representation submitted by the delinquent officer did not adduce any fresh points that merit consideration. A total loss of Rs.9,29,525/- was caused to the Government in execution of the said works, and the delinquent officer is held responsible for a loss of Rs.3,09,842, being one-third of total loss. The Government, therefore, held all the four charges as proved against Thiru.V.Balasubramani, Assistant Executive Engineer (under suspension and not allowed to retire on 31.03.2019 AN), Water Resources Department. For the charges held proved against him, the Government arrived at a provisional conclusion to impose the punishment of “Compulsory Retirement” on Thiru.V.Balasubramani, Assistant Executive Engineer (under suspension and not allowed to retire on 31.03.2019 AN), Water Resources Department, and recover an amount of Rs.3,09,842/- from his Death Cum Retirement Gratuity for the loss caused by him to the Government.”

8. As per the above discussion, this Court could able to arrive at a conclusion that the Disciplinary Authority had applied it’s mind before proposing the punishment of compulsory retirement. After proposing the punishment, he wanted to have the opinion of TNPSC. Since TNPSC was

also in concurrence with the Disciplinary Authority, he simply recorded the same in paragraph 7. Therefore, the reading of paragraph 7 in islolation may appears to be cryptic in nature. But, we must read the entire order especially in paragraph 5, [as extracted hereinabove]. Therefore, the contention that the impugned order is a non-speaking order is liable to be rejected.

9. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, though the Supervising Authority filed a report, such report was not considered by TDP. While looking into the documents, such report was given to the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption. If really such document is the material to decide the TDP proceedings, nothing prevented the petitioner to summon the same to produce before the Authority concerned. While looking into the TDP report, no defence documents were marked as Exhibits. Therefore, having not taken such defence before the Disciplinary Authority, referring the same while challenging the impugned order is an after thought.

10. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has utilized the money only in accordance with the approved estimate and as directed by the Government. But, through the documents and the material witnesses, the Disciplinary Authority as well as TDP has arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner and other co-delinquents, instead of constructing retaining wall they constructed sluice contrary to the estimate. Further, the TDP relied documents to show the manipulation of records. Therefore, the cogent findings arrived by TDP, that too based upon the material available on record.

11. Before we delve further, it is relevant to discuss the legal position regarding 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)

12. 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.

13. While considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the backdrop of the above legal principles at the best, those grounds may give some cause to have an alternate finding. But, such possibility of alternative finding cannot be a ground to interfere with the factual finding recorded by the Disciplinary Authority. Therefore, the contention that the Disciplinary Authority has not relied upon certain documents is a futile one. Though the matter was originally entrusted to the TDP on 25.08.2011, the charge was framed on 26.11.2011 and the enquiry was concluded on 08.10.2015. In the meanwhile, 8 witnesses were examined and 26 documents were marked. As already submitted, though there are some delays, while considering the TDP report, this Court could not find any material as to how such delay has affected the petitioner’s case.

14. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgement in Roop Singh Negi’s case [cited supra] and would contend that the mere suspicion is not sufficient to arrive at a conclusion. But, while considering the findings rendered by the TDP, and re-appreciated by the Disciplinary Authority, the findings are probable one and the finding is not arrived at based upon the suspecion. Though the petitioner has relied upon the judgment in Bhupinderpal Singh’s case [cited supra] to project the case of non speaking order, as already discussed, the Disciplinary Authority has elaborately considered all the materials and has applied his mind (as extracted hereinabove) and only thereafter, has arrived at a conclusion. Therefore, this Court absolutely does not find any infirmity in the findings rendered by the TDP as well as the Disciplinary Authority.

15. Now coming to the punishment, since this charge being the corruption, manipulation of records and a loss to the tune of more than Rs.10.00 lakhs to the public exchequer, this Court could not find any material so as to bring the punishment within the parameter of shockingly disproportionate. Hence, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order.

16. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. 10-09-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes KMI

To

1. Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Principal Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

2. The Commissioner Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Old Collectorate Compound, Tiruchirapalli.

3. Engineer in Chief and Chief Engineer General, PWD, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

4. The Chief Engineer WRD, Tiruchirapalli Region, Tiruchirapalli-620 020.

5. The Superintending Engineer WRD, Middle Cauvery Basin Circle, Tiruchirapalli-620 020.

6. The Executive Engineer WRD, Middle Cauvery Basin Circle, Tiruchirapalli-620 020.

C.KUMARAPPAN J. KMI WP No. 28874 of 2023 10-09-2026