Madras High Court
WP/31908/2025 of S.SUGANTHI Vs THE REGISTRAR GENERAL on 24 August 2026
W.P.NO.31908 OF 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.08.2026
CORAM
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN
W.P.NO.31908 OF 2025
S.Suganthi
… Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Registrar General
High Court of Madras
Chennai – 104.
2.The Principal District Judge
Salem,
Salem District.
… Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the first respondent proceedings in ROC No.130025/2023/C1, dated 20.06.2025 and confirming in ROC
No.19087/2021 (D.E.No.22/2021) dated 13.10.2023 by the second respondent quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to give promotion on par with immediate junior and all monetary benefits to the petitioner.
For Petitioner
:
Mr.C.Vediappan
For Respondents
:
Mr.V.Chandrasekaran
W.P.NO.31908 OF 2025
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.
O R D E R
( Order
of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam, J.)
The punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect imposed in a disciplinary proceedings and confirmed by the appellate authority are under challenge in the present writ proceedings.
2. The petitioner was holding the post of Grade – I Bench Clerk. Departmental disciplinary proceedings were initiated under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. Charges against the petitioner are that a litigant deposited a sum of Rs.5,000/- and the petitioner issued receipt to the said amount. However, the amount deposited by the litigant was not deposited in the Court account by the other employee. Since the petitioner failed to verify the said fact, departmental disciplinary proceedings were initiated and a charge memorandum came to be issued. The petitioner submitted her explanation denying the charges. Not satisfied with the explanation, an Enquiry Officer was appointed. By affording opportunity, departmental enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was also participated in the process of enquiry. The Enquiry Officer, after conducting a detailed
W.P.NO.31908 OF 2025
enquiry, held that the charge against the petitioner is held proved. The findings of the Enquiry Officer was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority. After issuing second show cause notice along with the enquiry report, further explanation was called for from the petitioner and the petitioner submitted her further explanation. Considering the gravity of the proved charges and taking note of the fact that there was dereliction of duty on the part of the petitioner, a minor punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect was imposed. The appeal filed by the writ petitioner was rejected. Thus, the present writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not committed any lapses or dereliction of duty. She received the money, and issued receipt and not committed any irregularity.
4. As a Bench Clerk Grade – I, the petitioner is duty bound to ensure that the amount collected is deposited in the Court account. Since the said verification was not done, a charge memorandum was issued for dereliction of duty. The procedures as contemplated under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, were
W.P.NO.31908 OF 2025
followed. Rules of natural justice has been complied with. The charges were held proved based on some evidence. Regarding the proportionality of the punishment, this Court is of the considered view that minor penalty alone is imposed for the proved charges of dereliction of duty on the part of the writ petitioner, which cannot be construed as disproportionate.
5. For all these reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merits and stands dismissed. No costs.
[S.M.S., J.] [K.G.R., J.]
24.08.2026 Index : Yes Speaking Order : Yes Neutral Citation : Yes / No TK To
1. The Registrar General High Court of Madras Chennai – 104.
2. The Principal District Judge Salem, Salem District.
W.P.NO.31908 OF 2025
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J. TK
W.P.NO.31908 OF 2025 24.08.2026