Full Judgment Text
Reportable
2025 INSC 1470
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Special Leave Petition (C) No.3256 of 2025
The Secretary to Government, Social Welfare
And Nutritious Meal Programme (SW1)
Department & Anr.
…Petitioners
Versus
P. Perumal
…Respondent
O R D E R
1. The controversy raised in the above Special Leave
Petition, by the State, is only as to whether the delay
occasioned in revising and enhancing the punishment
imposed, under Rule 36 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules (for short the “Discipline and
Appeal Rules”), vitiates the order itself.
2. The High Court found that the communication of the
proposal for revision and the order of enhancement of the
punishment, to one of dismissal, was grossly delayed. The
admitted facts are that the respondent while continuing as
Signature Not Verified
Supervisor was charge-sheeted and a disciplinary
Digitally signed by
SAPNA BISHT
Date: 2025.12.19
10:41:40 IST
Reason:
proceeding was initiated in the year 2012. Pursuant to the
Page 1 of 6
SLP (C) No. 3256 of 2025
report of the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority passed
an order imposing a punishment of stoppage of increment for
two years without cumulative effect, on 13.11.2017. It is
pertinent to note that the report of the Enquiry Officer was in
the year 2013, four years after which the disciplinary authority
imposed the punishment in 2017. Be that as it may, the
respondent did not challenge the order of punishment on any
grounds and not at all on the aspect of delay. The punishment
imposed of stoppage of increment for two years without
cumulative effect, attained finality and was suffered in full.
3. Later, a show-cause notice was issued on 27.02.2020
under Rule 36 of the Discipline and Appeal Rules seeking to
enhance the punishment and convert it to a major punishment
of removal from service. The respondent immediately replied
on 19.03.2020, requesting the action proposed to be dropped.
Much later, the respondent was removed from service on
04.01.2021.
4. Admittedly, the respondent attained the age of
superannuation in May 2020. We, hence, put a query to Mr.
Raju Ramachandran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the petitioner-State as to whether the respondent’s retirement
was subject to continuation of proceedings, failing which the
Page 2 of 6
SLP (C) No. 3256 of 2025
employer-employee relationship ceases on superannuation.
Learned Senior Counsel, on instructions clarified that since at
that point of time the pandemic was raging throughout the
country, the respondent along with other employees, were
continued and it was during such continuance that the order of
removal from service was passed.
5. Though, we are not convinced that the extension beyond
retirement on exigency; which Mr. R.S Anandan, learned
counsel for the respondent submits was after the date of
retirement, would necessarily enable the State to continue the
disciplinary proceedings beyond superannuation, without a
clear rider to that effect, we would not dwell upon it since even
on the ground stated by the High Court, we are not convinced
that the SLP can be entertained.
6. To explain the delay Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned
Senior Counsel specifically pointed to Rule 36 of the Discipline
and Appeal Rules, which does not provide any limitation for
the purpose of making such revision. The decision to revise
the punishment was taken on 04.12.2018 within 5 months of the
order of punishment issued is the contention. The further
proceedings were delayed due to covid and the usual
Page 3 of 6
SLP (C) No. 3256 of 2025
rigmarole to which every governmental action is susceptible,
is the argument.
7. First, we notice Rule 36 of the Discipline and Appeal
Rules, which is extracted in the impugned judgment. There is
a clear limitation of six months provided for revision to be
made suo motu or otherwise, calling for the records of any
enquiry and after consultation with the Tamil Nadu Public
Service Commission, to cause revision of the orders of
punishment already passed. When there is a six-month
limitation provided for the decision to be taken, it cannot be
said that after the decision is taken, the State could take its own
sweet time to issue the show cause notice. The primary fallacy
in the said argument is that on 04.12.2018, there was only a
proposal to revise the earlier order, which proposal cannot
crystalize into a decision unless the employer is given a
reasonable opportunity of hearing, which Rule 36 itself
mandates. It is to this end that a show-cause notice is
contemplated, which was issued on 27.02.2020 and the
decision arrived at on 04.01.2021, much beyond the limitation
of 6 months.
8. The proposal to revise and enhance the punishment if not
immediately communicated to the employee, the delay and
Page 4 of 6
SLP (C) No. 3256 of 2025
the change in circumstances, as in this case, would inure to the
benefit of the delinquent, by reason first of the limitation and
then the prejudice occasioned and more importantly this
would weaken and erode the State’s authority and undermine
public interest.
9. There was no semblance of the pandemic in 2018 nor
even an apprehension of such a mishap befalling the world.
The first show cause notice issued to the respondent was on
27.02.2020. Again, despite reply having been given by the
respondent on 19.03.2020, the order imposing the punishment
of removal from service was passed on 04.01.2021. The State
obviously had dragged its feet at every instance seriously
prejudicing the respondent. The statutory mandate of revision
in 6 months also stood violated.
10. We have to also pertinently observe that, by the time the
show-cause notice was issued on 27.02.2020, the respondent
had already suffered the punishment imposed of stoppage of
increment for two years without cumulative effect. In the year
2019, after the rigour of punishment of two years, his two
increments were restored since the stoppage was without
Page 5 of 6
SLP (C) No. 3256 of 2025
cumulative effect. The respondent hence was imposed with
two punishments for the very same misconduct.
11. The order revising the earlier punishment for all the
above reasons, apart from the bar of limitation, is arbitrary,
unreasonable and unconscionable and not expected in
fairness; especially from the State who should be a model
employer.
12. The Special Leave Petition stands rejected, restoring the
respondent; with all benefits of service, and retirement with
every dues.
13. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
…….……….……………………. J.
(AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH)
…………………………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI
DECEMBER 11, 2025.
Page 6 of 6
SLP (C) No. 3256 of 2025
2025 INSC 1470
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Special Leave Petition (C) No.3256 of 2025
The Secretary to Government, Social Welfare
And Nutritious Meal Programme (SW1)
Department & Anr.
…Petitioners
Versus
P. Perumal
…Respondent
O R D E R
1. The controversy raised in the above Special Leave
Petition, by the State, is only as to whether the delay
occasioned in revising and enhancing the punishment
imposed, under Rule 36 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules (for short the “Discipline and
Appeal Rules”), vitiates the order itself.
2. The High Court found that the communication of the
proposal for revision and the order of enhancement of the
punishment, to one of dismissal, was grossly delayed. The
admitted facts are that the respondent while continuing as
Signature Not Verified
Supervisor was charge-sheeted and a disciplinary
Digitally signed by
SAPNA BISHT
Date: 2025.12.19
10:41:40 IST
Reason:
proceeding was initiated in the year 2012. Pursuant to the
Page 1 of 6
SLP (C) No. 3256 of 2025
report of the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority passed
an order imposing a punishment of stoppage of increment for
two years without cumulative effect, on 13.11.2017. It is
pertinent to note that the report of the Enquiry Officer was in
the year 2013, four years after which the disciplinary authority
imposed the punishment in 2017. Be that as it may, the
respondent did not challenge the order of punishment on any
grounds and not at all on the aspect of delay. The punishment
imposed of stoppage of increment for two years without
cumulative effect, attained finality and was suffered in full.
3. Later, a show-cause notice was issued on 27.02.2020
under Rule 36 of the Discipline and Appeal Rules seeking to
enhance the punishment and convert it to a major punishment
of removal from service. The respondent immediately replied
on 19.03.2020, requesting the action proposed to be dropped.
Much later, the respondent was removed from service on
04.01.2021.
4. Admittedly, the respondent attained the age of
superannuation in May 2020. We, hence, put a query to Mr.
Raju Ramachandran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the petitioner-State as to whether the respondent’s retirement
was subject to continuation of proceedings, failing which the
Page 2 of 6
SLP (C) No. 3256 of 2025
employer-employee relationship ceases on superannuation.
Learned Senior Counsel, on instructions clarified that since at
that point of time the pandemic was raging throughout the
country, the respondent along with other employees, were
continued and it was during such continuance that the order of
removal from service was passed.
5. Though, we are not convinced that the extension beyond
retirement on exigency; which Mr. R.S Anandan, learned
counsel for the respondent submits was after the date of
retirement, would necessarily enable the State to continue the
disciplinary proceedings beyond superannuation, without a
clear rider to that effect, we would not dwell upon it since even
on the ground stated by the High Court, we are not convinced
that the SLP can be entertained.
6. To explain the delay Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned
Senior Counsel specifically pointed to Rule 36 of the Discipline
and Appeal Rules, which does not provide any limitation for
the purpose of making such revision. The decision to revise
the punishment was taken on 04.12.2018 within 5 months of the
order of punishment issued is the contention. The further
proceedings were delayed due to covid and the usual
Page 3 of 6
SLP (C) No. 3256 of 2025
rigmarole to which every governmental action is susceptible,
is the argument.
7. First, we notice Rule 36 of the Discipline and Appeal
Rules, which is extracted in the impugned judgment. There is
a clear limitation of six months provided for revision to be
made suo motu or otherwise, calling for the records of any
enquiry and after consultation with the Tamil Nadu Public
Service Commission, to cause revision of the orders of
punishment already passed. When there is a six-month
limitation provided for the decision to be taken, it cannot be
said that after the decision is taken, the State could take its own
sweet time to issue the show cause notice. The primary fallacy
in the said argument is that on 04.12.2018, there was only a
proposal to revise the earlier order, which proposal cannot
crystalize into a decision unless the employer is given a
reasonable opportunity of hearing, which Rule 36 itself
mandates. It is to this end that a show-cause notice is
contemplated, which was issued on 27.02.2020 and the
decision arrived at on 04.01.2021, much beyond the limitation
of 6 months.
8. The proposal to revise and enhance the punishment if not
immediately communicated to the employee, the delay and
Page 4 of 6
SLP (C) No. 3256 of 2025
the change in circumstances, as in this case, would inure to the
benefit of the delinquent, by reason first of the limitation and
then the prejudice occasioned and more importantly this
would weaken and erode the State’s authority and undermine
public interest.
9. There was no semblance of the pandemic in 2018 nor
even an apprehension of such a mishap befalling the world.
The first show cause notice issued to the respondent was on
27.02.2020. Again, despite reply having been given by the
respondent on 19.03.2020, the order imposing the punishment
of removal from service was passed on 04.01.2021. The State
obviously had dragged its feet at every instance seriously
prejudicing the respondent. The statutory mandate of revision
in 6 months also stood violated.
10. We have to also pertinently observe that, by the time the
show-cause notice was issued on 27.02.2020, the respondent
had already suffered the punishment imposed of stoppage of
increment for two years without cumulative effect. In the year
2019, after the rigour of punishment of two years, his two
increments were restored since the stoppage was without
Page 5 of 6
SLP (C) No. 3256 of 2025
cumulative effect. The respondent hence was imposed with
two punishments for the very same misconduct.
11. The order revising the earlier punishment for all the
above reasons, apart from the bar of limitation, is arbitrary,
unreasonable and unconscionable and not expected in
fairness; especially from the State who should be a model
employer.
12. The Special Leave Petition stands rejected, restoring the
respondent; with all benefits of service, and retirement with
every dues.
13. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
…….……….……………………. J.
(AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH)
…………………………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI
DECEMBER 11, 2025.
Page 6 of 6
SLP (C) No. 3256 of 2025