Madras High Court
WA/3321/2023 of S.MANOHARAN Vs THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT on 7 September 2026
WA No. 3321 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on
28.08.2026
Pronounced on
07.09.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN
WA No. 3321 of 2023
S.Manoharan
S/o.C.M.Santhanam,
Now working as Driver,
Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai-104.
..Appellant
Vs
1. The Principal Secretary to Government Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
2. The Chairman
Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai-104.
..Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, to set aside the order dated 23.06.2023 passed by this Honble Court in W.P.No. 3832
of 2017.
For Appellant :
Mr.N.Balamuralikrishnan
For Respondents:
Ms.R.K.Sekina Reshma,
Additional Government Pleader for R1
R2 – Tribunal
WA No. 3321 of 2023
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
(Krishnaswamy Govindarajan,J.) This Writ Appeal has been filed as against the order dated 23.06.2023 passed in W.P.No.3832 of 2017 by the learned Single Judge.
2. The writ Court dismissed the writ petition. As against which, the present Writ Appeal is filed.
3. The case of the writ petitioner / appellant herein is that he was appointed as a Driver through Employment Exchange in the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal/first respondent herein on 30.03.2007. Immediately on 31.05.2007, he was served with proceedings removing him from service with effect from 31.05.2007 on the ground of unauthorised absence on 27.04.2007, 28.05.2007 AN and 29.05.2007.
4. It is the case of the appellant that he never absented from duty unauthorisedly. On 27.04.2007, he left from the Hon'ble Chairman's residence only after the Chairman left for camp at Cuddalore. On 28.05.2007, he left only after completing all the works allotted to him and he was very much available on 29.05.2007. Challenging the termination, originally the petitioner filed
WA No. 3321 of 2023
W.P.No.23788 of 2008 and the same was withdrawn with liberty to approach the Government. The petitioner's appeal was allowed by the Government with liberty to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings and the petitioner was also reinstated on 19.10.2011.Thereafter, the second respondent issued charge memo under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules as against the writ petitioner. After enquiry, punishment of "stoppage of increment without cumulative effect for a period of one year and treating the period of dismissal from 31.05.2007 to 20.10.2011 as Extraordinary Leave without allowance" was imposed. The said order was challenged in W.P.No.3832 of 2017.
5. The respondents herein, who are respondents in the writ petition, filed counter affidavit stating that petitioner's conduct is not up to the mark and the punishment imposed is also minimum compared to the proved charges.
6. The learned Single Judge, after considering the materials, came to the conclusion that all the charges as against the petitioner were proved and comparing the charges, the punishment imposed does not require any interference from the Court and therefore, dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 23.06.2023. As against the said order, the present Writ Appeal has been filed.
WA No. 3321 of 2023
7. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.
8. The petitioner joined duty as a Driver on 30.03.2007. Within two months, he was served with a charge memo on the ground of unauthorised absence on three occasions. The petitioner was appointed as a Driver and he should be available for the officials at all times. The nature of duty of a Driver is that his presence is required for the movement of the official under whom he is working. Within two months of joining, if he had absented himself unauthorisedly, it should not be taken lightly. However, the authority imposing only a minor penalty compared to the charges proved. That too, the petitioner is in service only for four months in the first spell. Considering the same, the Writ Court has rightly not interfered with the punishment order.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant has also not made out any case for interference with the order of the learned Single Judge. The scope of interference in Writ Appeal as against punishment is very limited, unless the punishment is shockingly disproportionate. In the present case, the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect and treating the period as EOL is not disproportionate but rather lenient.
WA No. 3321 of 2023
10. In view of the above, we find no merit in the Writ Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 07.09.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No rli To
1. The Principal Secretary To Government Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
2. The Chairman Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai-104.
WA No. 3321 of 2023
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J. rli WA No. 3321 of 2023