S.UDHAYA SURIYAN vs THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY

2026:MHC:4362
WP No. 11431 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
WP No. 11431 of 2024
CNR:{HCMA010747962024}
AND
WMP Nos. 12541 & 12543 OF 2024
S.Udhaya Suriyan
S/o.Srinivasan,
No.38, Sunnambukara Street,
Chengalpattu District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Additional Chief Secretary
Government Of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George,
Chennai-09.
2. The Secretary
Revenue Department, Fort St. George,
Chennai-09.
3. The Principal Secretary
Government Of Tamil Nadu,
Revenue And Disaster Management
Department, Government Of Tamil Nadu,
Chennai-05.
..Respondent(s)
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in respect of
the impugned proceedings in G.O. (2D) No.178 dated 22.07.2019 passed by the
st
1 respondent and consequent G.O. (2D) No.267 dated 06.12.2022 passed by
rd
the 3 respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents
to continue to pay the pension as eligible to the petitioner herein.
__________
Page1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 07:33:15 pm )

2026:MHC:4362
WP No. 11431 of 2024
For Petitioner(s): Mr.P.Wesley Isaac
For Respondent(s): Mr.K.K.Ram Siddhartha
Additional Government Pleader for R1 To R3
*
ORDER
The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order
of the Disciplinary Authority imposing the punishment of compulsory
retirement vide G.O.(2D).No.178 dated 22.07.2019 and as a consequence, the
pension of the petitioner was got reduced vide order dated 06.12.2022.
2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional
Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the very
finding rendered by the Disciplinary Authority is in contravention to the
Revenue Standing Order. The learned counsel would further submit that the
petitioner was given a charge memorandum on 04.02.2015 as if he has created a
bogus Patta. For which, the petitioner has given a detailed explanation on
24.03.2015. Not satisfying with the explanation, the Disciplinary Authority has
appointed an Enquiry Officer on 22.05.2015. Before the Enquiry Officer, the
petitioner has participated and finally the Enquiry Officer has submitted a report
on 22.02.2017 holding that the charge levelled against the petitioner is proved.
Subsequently, the further explanation was called for from the petitioner, for
__________
Page2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 07:33:15 pm )

2026:MHC:4362
WP No. 11431 of 2024
which, the petitioner has sent a further representation on 22.03.2017. However,
without considering the further representation to it’s right perspective, the
impugned order dated 22.07.2019 was passed by imposing a punishment of
compulsory retirement. The learned counsel would further contend that, even
according to the explanation as well as the further representation, he has
categorically mentioned that he had performed his duty as directed by the
Tahsildar and that he being a Surveyor, there is no possibility for issuance of
patta and issuance of Patta falls within the purview of the Tahsildar and the
Village Administrative Officer. Whereas, this petitioner had been falsely
implicated in this case. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the punishment imposed against the petitioner is disproportionate.
Hence, prayed to interfere with the impugned order.
4. Per contra, the said contention was stoutly objected by the learned
Additional Government Pleader and would contend that, the charge against the
petitioner is the issuance of bogus Patta. The learned Additional Government
Pleader would further contend that in the field, there was only 49 cents in
existence. Whereas, in order to help one Mr.Padmanabhan, based upon the
documents created by Mr.Padmanabhan as if in Patta No.278 there exists 93
cents. He has prepared a sketch as if there exists 93 cents in the field where
__________
Page3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 07:33:15 pm )

2026:MHC:4362
WP No. 11431 of 2024
really only 49 cents is available in the field. Though the petitioner has no
authority to issue any Patta, any sub-division or issuance of Patta would
emanate based upon the Surveyor’s report. In the case in hand, since the
Surveyor has created a document as if there exists land in the field, the Patta
was issued. Therefore, merely because the petitioner did not sign in that Patta,
that by itself will not be given any clean chit to the petitioner, as the entire
issuance of Patta was based upon the Surveyor’s report submitted by the
petitioner. It is also his contention that there is no perversity in the impugned
order. Hence, prayed to dismiss the present writ petition.
5.I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.
6.While considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, he has not raised any serious dispute with regard to the procedure
followed by the respondents. It is well settled principle of law that whenever
any writ petition is filed challenging the dismissal order, while exercising the
power of judicial review, this Court should only look at the process in which the
decision had been taken and not the correctness of the decision, unless such
decision is perverse. In the case in hand, the charge against the petitioner is that
he has created a bogus Patta in Patta No.518 for 89 cents and Patta No.278 for
93 cents in favour of Mr.Padmanabhan. The defence put forth by the petitioner
__________
Page4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 07:33:15 pm )

2026:MHC:4362
WP No. 11431 of 2024
is that, he has acted solely on the instruction of the Tahsildar. Even assuming
that such instruction was given by the Tahsildar, the fact remains that the
petitioner prepared a sketch as if there exists a land of 89 cents and 93 cents in
the field. Whereas such extent of lands are not available and only lesser extent
of land are available in the field. It is further established through records that,
the sketch prepared and the survey report given by the petitioner tally with the
document relied by Mr.Padmanabhan in whose favour the said bogus Patta has
been issued. Therefore, though the learned counsel for the petitioner would
contend that he has acted in accordance with the instruction of the Tahsildar and
he has no authority to issue Patta, while considering the Enquiry report, there
are evidence to establish the complicity of the petitioner in the commission of
misconduct.
7.At this juncture, it is relevant to refer the contours of the judicial
review. In this regard, this Court would like to refer to the following
judgments:-
(i) B.C.Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India reported in (1995)
6 SCC 749
(ii) Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) Vs.
Ajai Kumar Srivastava reported in (2021) 2 SCC 61.
(iii) The Indian Oil Corporation & Ors., Vs. Ajit Kumar
Singh & Anr., reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 478.
__________
Page5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 07:33:15 pm )

2026:MHC:4362
WP No. 11431 of 2024
Through the above judgements, the following principles would
emerge:-
(i) Power of Judicial review is not like an appeal. But such
power is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair
treatment and the compliance of natural justice.
(ii) The power of judicial review is not like an appellate
remedy to substitute its own finding, unless the findings of the
Original Authority and Appellate Authority is perverse and
without evidence.
(iii) The High Court had no jurisdiction to review the
penalty, unless the same is shockingly disproportionate.
(iv) The mere possibility to arrive at yet another finding,
cannot be a reason to substitute the finding of the disciplinary
Authority.
(v) The judicial review is meant only to ensure fairness in
treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion.
(vi) While exercising the power of judicial review, so long
as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by
the original authority, the same has to be sustained.
8.According to the above principles, unless there is any perversity in the
impugned order, the reasoning given by the Disciplinary Authority cannot be
interfered with . Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised some
objection, this Court is of the firm view that such objection by itself will not be
sufficient to make the impugned order become perverse. Furthermore, coming
to the punishment, this being a case of fabrication of Patta for non existing land,
__________
Page6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 07:33:15 pm )

2026:MHC:4362
WP No. 11431 of 2024
considering the serious allegation against the petitioner, this Court absolutely
does not find any disproportionality in the punishment. Therefore, this Court
does not find any merits in the present Writ Petition.
9.Accordingly, the present Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected WMPs are also closed.
27-10-2026
Index: Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes
KMI
To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary
Government Of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai-09.
2. The Secretary
Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-09.
3. The Principal Secretary
Government Of Tamil Nadu,
Revenue And Disaster Management Department,
Government Of Tamil Nadu, Chennai-05.
__________
Page7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 07:33:15 pm )

2026:MHC:4362
WP No. 11431 of 2024
C.KUMARAPPAN J.
KMI
WP No. 11431 of 2024
AND
WMP Nos.12541 & 12543 OF 2024
27-10-2026
__________
Page8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 07:33:15 pm )