WA/514/2024 of S.M.A.RAM@S.M.ARUMUGAM Vs THE DIRECTOR on 7 September 2026

J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam, J.) The present intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent has been instituted by the writ petitioner seeking a writ of declaration to declare the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in imposing the punishment of reduction of scale of pay and pay retrospectively, and without mentioning any period and also without issuing any final order, as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to regularise the period of suspension from 07.06.2001 to 14.02.2025 as duty with pay for all purposes and to restore his original scale of pay along with consequential monetary benefits.

2. The appellant was holding the post of Distribution Assistant in Indian Institute of Technology. Departmental disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and a charge memo was issued. The charge against the appellant was insubordination and non-performance of the duties allotted to him. Explanation received from the appellant since not satisfied, an enquiry was conducted. The departmental enquiry was conducted by affording opportunity to the appellant. He participated in the

W.A.NO.514 OF 2024

enquiry proceedings and defended his case. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report, holding that the charges framed against the appellant were proved. Second show cause notice was issued providing further opportunity to the appellant to submit his explanation on the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Accepting the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of reduction in scale of pay. The appeal preferred by the appellant was also rejected. The writ petition filed by the appellant seeking a declaratory relief was also dismissed.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Mr.R.Sankarasubbu would mainly contend that the delay in filing the writ petition cannot be held against the appellant, since it is a continuing cause of action. He would further submit that the charges are vague and the Appellate Authority’s order is non-speaking. The grounds raised in the appeal were not considered and therefore, the appeal is to be treated as kept pending. It is a case of no evidence. No documents were relied upon and no witnesses were examined and therefore, the order of punishment is to be set aside.

W.A.NO.514 OF 2024

4. Mr.R.Parthiban, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents would oppose by stating that the writ petition is liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches. The departmental disciplinary proceedings were initiated in the year 2004. The original Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment on 07.02.2005. The appellant retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 29.02.2016. After retirement, he filed a writ petition seeking declaratory relief without even challenging the original order of punishment as well as the appeal order. Therefore, the writ court was right in dismissing the writ petition.

5. The arguments made on behalf of the respective learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties to the lis are considered by this court.

6. The scope of judicial review in departmental disciplinary proceedings is undoubtedly limited. In the present case, the rules of natural justice has been complied with. Order of punishment was imposed. Order of punishment was passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the appeal filed by the appellant was also rejected in the year 2005

W.A.NO.514 OF 2024

itself. Both the order of punishment and the order passed by the Appellate Authority have remained unchallenged till date. Instead of challenging the punishment order and the Appellate Authority’s order, the writ petition has been filed seeking a declaratory relief, after a lapse of about 11 years from the date of punishment and after attaining the age of superannuation. Thus, the writ petition was rightly rejected on the ground of delay and laches. Even on merits, the grounds raised by the appellant deserves no merit consideration. Since the procedures as contemplated for conduct of disciplinary proceedings have been complied with, the other grounds raised, at this length of time, cannot be adjudicated. Even the original order passed by the Disciplinary Authority has not been produced nor challenged in the writ petition. This being the factum, this Court does not find any infirmity in respect of the writ order impugned. Consequently, the writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed. [S.M.S., J.] [K.G.R., J.]

07.09.2026 Index : Yes Speaking Order : Yes Neutral Citation : Yes / No TK

W.A.NO.514 OF 2024

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J. TK To

1. The Director Indian Institute of Technology Chennai – 600 036.

2. The Chairman and Counsel of Wardens Hostel Management Indian Institute of Technology Chennai – 600 036. W.A.NO.514 OF 2024 07.09.2026