WP/30045/2025 of M.VENTHAN Vs THE REGISTRAR GENERAL on 10 September 2026

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) The present Writ Petition has been instituted challenging the order dated 26.09.2023 passed by the Principal District Judge, Tiruppur, discharging the writ petitioner, on the ground that his services were not satisfactory and the appellate order rejecting the claim of the petitioner

2. Writ petitioner was appointed to the post of Office Assistant on 10.12.2021. Since the authorities found that his services were not satisfactory, a show-cause notice was issued to him vide Proceedings, dated 22.08.2023. The explanation submitted by the petitioner was not accepted and he was discharged from service simpliciter.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would mainly contend that allegations are raised in the show-cause notice, which formed the basis for issuing the order of discharge simpliciter. Therefore, the order is to be set aside on the ground that no enquiry was conducted.

WP No. 30045 of 2025

4. Learned counsel for the respondent would oppose the same by stating that order of discharge was passed based on the unsatisfactory service of the petitioner. Therefore, it is to be construed as a discharge simpliciter for all purposes. He would rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Punjab and Others vs. Constable Avtar Singh (Dead) through LRS.1, wherein the following observations are made: “8......The State of Punjab aggrieved by the order of the High Court filed an appeal by special leave before this Court. The State of Punjab contended before this Court that the respondent was only a probationer in terms of the Rules. That the impugned order of discharge was neither stigmatic nor did it affect him with any evil consequences. The impugned order was passed in exercise of the power conferred by the Rules. That since no disciplinary action had been taken against the respondent there was no necessity of holding any formal enquiry. On the other hand, the respondent submitted that the impugned order of discharge, although apparently innocuous, had in fact been passed on the ground of misconduct viz. the continued absence from duty and therefore amounted to an order of dismissal. That, therefore, it was obligatory upon the appointing authority to have held a formal departmental enquiry. This Court held as under: (Sukhwinder Singh Case, SCCpp. 580-81, para 20) 1 2008 (7) SCC 40

WP No. 30045 of 2025

…..

11. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. We are in total agreement with the submission of the learned Counsel for the State of Punjab that the controversy involved in this case is no longer res integra. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent had drawn our attention to a two- Judge bench decision of this Court in Prithipal Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. reported in (2002)10 SCC

133. The court held that once there is stigma, the principle is well settled, an opportunity has to be given before passing any order. Even where an order of discharge looks innocuous, but on a close scrutiny, by looking behind the curtain if any material exists of misconduct and which is the foundation of passing of the order of discharge, or such could be reasonably inferred, then it leaves no room for doubt that any consequential order, even of discharge, would be construed as stigmatic. The decision in Sukhwinder Singh was given by a three-Judge bench and in view of that decision in 2005, there is no scope for this Court to take a different view. We are squarely bound by the said decision.”

5. This Court is of the considered view that an order of discharge simpliciter may be issued only on the ground of unsatisfactory service. If any allegations are raised against an employee, then an enquiry is to be conducted. Perusal of the show-cause notice would show that certain

WP No. 30045 of 2025

serious allegations relating to disproportionate assets have been raised against the writ petitioner. That apart, no permission has been obtained by the petitioner for securing a loan from the bank and for construction of a house.

6. These all are certain serious misconducts under the Service Rules, and in the event of raising such allegations, the authority competent is bound to conduct an enquiry by following the procedure as contemplated under law. An order of discharge simpliciter cannot be issued by way of a punitive measure. In the present case, the allegations are serious. Therefore, the order of discharge simpliciter cannot be sustained.

7. The judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent is factually distinguishable, since in the said case, the order of discharge simplicitor was passed by the authority without raising any allegations, but in the counter statement, certain allegations were raised, which has been distinguished by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Therefore, the said judgment is of no avail to the respondent.

8. Pertinently, Rule 30(a) of the Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service speaks about termination or extension of probation. Note to the

WP No. 30045 of 2025

said Rules, reads as under: “NOTE. Where it is proposed to discharge a probationer from service for general unsatisfactory work or incapacity without the need for enquiry into specific charges against him, he shall be discharged after being given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him. In cases where it is proposed to discharge the probationer from the service for specific charges in addition to, or distinct from general inefficiency or incapacity, a specific charge shall be framed and the detailed procedure laid down in the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules shall be followed.”

9. Perusal of the show-cause notice in the present case would indicate that specific allegations of misconduct are raised against the petitioner. Therefore, the order of discharge simpliciter is in violation of the above provision under the Service Rules. In the event of specific allegations, an enquiry needs to be conducted by following the procedure as contemplated under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.

10. In the present case, the said procedure has not been followed

WP No. 30045 of 2025

and an order of discharge simpliciter has been issued, which in the opinion of this Court, is not in consonance with the Rule 30(a) of the Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service Rules. However, in respect of the said specific allegations, the authorities concerned are at liberty to proceed against the petitioner by following the procedure as contemplated under the Discipline and Appeal Rules. As far as the impugned order of discharge simpliciter is concerned, it cannot be sustained.

11. Consequently, the impugned order of the 1st respondent in ROC No.135506/ 2023/ C1 dated 20.06.2025 and the impugned order of the 2nd respondent in A.No.318/2023 dated 26.09.2023 are set aside and the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 10-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No GD To

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

2. The Principal District Judge, Tiruppur-638 656

WP No. 30045 of 2025

WP No. 30045 of 2025

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J. GD WP No. 30045 of 2025 10-09-2026