T.F.CYLUS BENJAMIN, vs THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
- Court
- Madras High Court
WP(MD) No. 24595 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 15.09.2026
Pronounced on 16.10.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJNISH PATHIYIL
WP(MD) No. 24595 of 2018
and
WMP(MD).Nos.22301 & 22302 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD010984702018}
T.F.Cylus Benjamin
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Secretary to Government ,
Finance and Local Fund Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai.
2. The Director Cum Disciplinary Authority,
Local Fund Audit,
Chennai-35.
3. The Joint Director,
Local Fund Audit, Kanyakumari Dist,
At Nagercoil.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: This Writ Petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of
India, praying to issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
st
records on the files of the 1 respondent pertaining to its Government order
nd
bearing No.294 dated 09.10.2018 confirming the punishment imposed by the 2
respondent in proceedings order No.Na.Ka.9351/Oo.Na1/2014 dated
03.11.2017 imposing punishment of stoppage of annual increment with
__________
Page 1 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:22:15 pm )
WP(MD) No. 24595 of 2018
cumulative effect shall be inclusive of the intervals spend on leave for 6 months
and consequently directing the respondent to grant promotion to the post of
Assistant Director Local Fund Audit on par with the petitioner immediate junior
within a time frame that may be fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner(s): M/s.S.C.Herold Singh
For Respondent(s): Mr.P.Pethu Rajesh
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to
set aside the order bearing No.294 dated 09.10.2018, confirming the punishment
imposed by the second respondent upon the petitioner vide proceedings dated
03.11.2017. The punishment imposed upon the petitioner is stoppage of annual
increment with cumulative effect for a period of six months, inclusive of the
period spent on leave, and also for a direction to grant promotion to the post of
Assistant Director of Local Fund Audit.
2. The petitioner has averred in the affidavit filed in support of the writ
petition that he was appointed as an Assistant Inspector of Internal Audit on
05.10.1995 and that he was promoted as Deputy Inspector, Local Fund Audit,
during October 2008. Thereafter, he was promoted as Inspector and posted at
Nagercoil Municipality to carry out concurrent audit. Subsequently, he was
posted to Melpuram Panchayat Union Headquarters, with Munchirai and
Thiruvattar Panchayat Unions under his jurisdiction. While he was discharging
__________
Page 2 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:22:15 pm )
WP(MD) No. 24595 of 2018
his duties by performing concurrent audit at Melpuram Panchayat Union, the
Nagercoil Municipal Concurrent Inspector, one Mr.Rathinam, was given
additional charge to conduct audit work of Kuzhithurai Municipality, Killiyoor
and Kuruthancode Panchayat Unions. Since Ms. C. Paramadevaki, who was to
perform the audit duties, was unable to complete them, Mr. Rathinam was given
additional charge and was to conduct the audit along with the petitioner.
3. He would contend in the affidavit that he was never allowed to audit
Munchirai and Thiruvattar Panchayats for ulterior motives and that he was
made a member of the audit party headed by one Mr.Rathinam for
Kuruthancode Panchayat Union. Due to the non-cooperation of the senior
auditor and a defect in the computer, he could not submit the report in time,
which culminated in the issuance of a charge memo. It is his case that though
the audit party was headed by Mr. Rathinam, the charges against him were
dropped after the petitioner submitted the audit report. Later, he was instructed
to take additional charge with regard to Kuruthancode Panchayat Union and
Kuzhithurai Municipality by way of diversion.
4. The respondents have not considered his case on the sole ground that
the punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect was in currency
and, therefore, he was not promoted as Assistant Director. The charges against
the petitioner are as follows:
__________
Page 3 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:22:15 pm )
WP(MD) No. 24595 of 2018
: 1
குற்றச்சாட்டுஎண்
திரு . த . பி . சைலஸ் பெஞ்சமின் , ஆய்வர் , கன்னியாகுமரி மாவட்ட
உதவி இயக்குநர் அலுவலகப் பணியாளர்களின் கூட்டப்பதிவே ட்டினை
ஒளிநகல் எடுத்துள்ளார் . அரசுப்பணியாளர் எவரும் , அரசின் ஏதேனும்
பொ து அல்லது சிறப்பாணை யைப் பெற்றிருந்தாலன்றி , நேரடியாகவோ
அல்லது மறைமுகமாகவோ ஏதேனும் அலுவலக ஆவணத்தை அல்லது
அதன்பகுதியை அதன்தகவலை அரசுப்பணியாளர்எவருக்கும்அல்லது
மற்றும் எவரோ ஒருவருக்கும் அத்தகைய ஆவணம் அல்லது தகவலை
தெரிவிப்பதற்குதனக்குஅதிகாரம்அளிக்கப்படாதநிலையில்தெரிவிக்கக்
. 10(1)
கூடாது தமிழ்நாடு அரசுப்பணியாளர் நடத்தை விதிகள் ன்படி
அலுவலக ஆவணத்தை தனக்கு அதிகாரம் அளிக்கப்படாத நிலையில்
ஒளிநகல்எடுத்ததுஅரசுப்பணியாளர்கள்நடத்தை விதியை மீறியசெயல்
.
என்றகுற்றச்சாட்டுசுமத்தப்படுகிறது
குற்றச்சாட்டுஎண் : 2
திரு . த . பி . சைலஸ்பெஞ்சமின்ஆய்வர் 23.07.2013 நாளில்கடிதத்தின்
வாயிலாக வெ ளியிட்ட தணிக்கைச் சீட்டில் தவறான தடையினை
,
எழுப்பியதற்கும் தேவை யின்றி திட்ட அலுவலரை பொ றுப்பாக்க
தன்னிச்சையாக கடிதம் அனுப்பியமைக்கும் , அலுவலக
நடைமுறைகளுக்கு புறம்பான வார்த்தைகளை பயன்படுத்தியதாகவும்
20(3)(1)
தமிழ்நாடு அரசுப் பணியாளர்கள் நடத்தை விதி ன்படி அரசுப்
பணியாளர் எவரும் தன்னுடைய அலுவலகப் பணிகளை
நிறைவே ற்றுகையில் அல்லது தனக்கு அளிக்கப்பட்டும் அதிகாரங்களை
செயல்படுத்துகையில் தன்னுடைய மேல் அலுவலரின் ஆணை ப்படி
செயல்படும் தருணங்கள் தவிர மற்றப்படி தன்னுடைய தேர்ந்த
முடிவின்படி அல்லாமல் வே றுவகையில் செயல்படக் கூடாது என்ற
தமிழ்நாடு அரசுப்பணியாளர்கள் நடத்தை விதியை மீறிய செயல் என்ற
.
குற்றச்சாட்டுசுமத்தப்படுகிறது
: 3
குற்றச்சாட்டுஎண்
திரு . த . பி . சைலஸ்பெஞ்சபின்ஆய்வரால்குருந்தன்கோ டுஊராட்சி
2011-12 8.2.2014
ஒன்றியத்தின் ஆம் ஆண்டுத் தணிக்கை அன்று
முடிக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது . தலைமை அலுவலக கடிதம் ந . க . எண் .2378-1 /
ந . த 4/2(2) நாள் 23.7.2012 ( சுற்றறிக்கை 15/2012) யின்படி தணிக்கை
(
முடிவுறும் நாளினை த் தொ டர்ந்து தணிக்கைக் குழுவினர் குழுவில்
__________
Page 4 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:22:15 pm )
WP(MD) No. 24595 of 2018
)
உள்ளஅனை வரும் உதவிஇயக்குநர்அலுவலகத்தில்இரண்டுவே லை
நாட்கள்துய்த்துவரைவுத்தணிக்கை அறிக்கையினை இறுதிசெய்திட
வே ண்டும் . இரண்டு நாட்கள் தணிக்கை அறிக்கை வரைதலுக்குத்
துய்த்தவுடன் வரைவு தணிக்கை அறிக்கையை உதவி இயக்குநர்
.
அலுவலகத்தில் உடன் அளிக்கப்பட வே ண்டும் குருந்தன்கோ டு
ஊராட்சிஒன்றியத்தின்தணிக்கை 8.2.2014 ல்முடிக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது . நாளது
தேதிவரை தணிக்கை அறிக்கை அலுவலகத்தில்சமர்ப்பிக்கப்படவில்லை .
7.3.2014
அன்று மண்டல துணை இயக்குநரை நேரில் சந்தித்து
குருந்தன்கோ டு ஊராட்சி ஒன்றிய 2011-12 ஆம் ஆண்டு தணிக்கை
அறிக்கை சமர்ப்பிக்காததுகுறித்துவிளக்கம்அளித்துஎழுத்துபூர்வமாக
14.3.2014
அளித்த கடிதத்தில் அன்று தணிக்கை அறிக்கை வெ ளியிட
ஒத்துழைப்பேன்எனஉறுதிஅளித்துள்ளீர் . ஆனால்இதுவரை தணிக்கை
அறிக்கை தங்களால் சமர்ப்பிக்கப்படவில்லை . தமிழ்நாடு அரசுப்
20 1
பணியாளர்கள் நடத்தை விதி உள் விதி ன்படி பணியாளர்
தம்மிடம் ஒப்படைக்கப்படும் பணியை வழக்கமாக அதற்குரிய கால
அளவில்மற்றும்தம்மிடம்எதிர்பார்க்கப்படும்தரத்தில்நிறைவே ற்றத்
தவறும் அரசுப் பணியில் ஆர்வம் இல்லாதவராகக் கருதப்படுவார் .
, 20 (1)
எனவே தமிழ்நாடுஅரசுப்பணியாளர்கள்நடத்தை விதி ன்படி
கடமையில் முற்றிலும் நேர்மையும் பற்றும் கொ ண்டவராக இருக்க
வே ண்டும்என்றநடத்தை விதியை மீறியதாககுற்றம்சுமத்தப்படுகிறது .
குற்றச்சாட்டுஎண் : 4
இவ்வலுவலகக் குறிப்பாணை ந . க . எண் .3303/ அ 5/2013 நாள்
24.2.2014- 27.2.2014-
ன் படி ல் இயக்குநரை நேரில் சந்தித்து விளக்கம்
.
அளித்துள்ளீர்கள் இயக்குநர் தங்களிடம் மண்டல துணை இயக்குநரை
சந்தித்து விளக்கம் அளிக்குமாறு அறிவுறுத்தியுள்ளார் . ஆனால்
இயக்குநரின் அறிவுரைக்கு கீழ்படியாததால் 5.3.2014- ல் இயக்குநரின்
அறிவுரையை பின்பற்றாததற்கு விளக்கம் அளிக்குமாறு
இவ்வலுவலகத்திலிருந்து குறிப்பாணை வழங்கிய பின் மண்டலத்
துணை இயக்குநரிடம் விளக்கம் அளிக்குமாறு இயக்குநர்
,
அறிவுறுத்தவில்லை என்று தவறான தகவலை தெரிவித்துள்ளீர்கள்
தமிழ்நாடுஅரசுப்பணியாளர்கள்நடத்தை விதி 20(1)- ன்படிபணியாளர்
ஒவ்வொ ருவரும்எந்தநேரமும்கடமையில்முற்றிலும்நேர்மையாகவும்
பற்றும்கொ ண்டவராகஇருப்பதுடன்பணியாளர்களுக்குபொ ருந்தாதது
எதையும்செய்யக்கூடாதுஎன்றநடத்தை விதியை மீறியதாகவும்உயர்
__________
Page 5 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:22:15 pm )
WP(MD) No. 24595 of 2018
அலுவலர்களுக்கு கீழ்படியாமை மற்றும் உயர் அலுவலர்
அறிவுறுத்தியதை மறுத்துதவறானதகவலை அளித்துள்ளீர்கள்என்றும்
குற்றச்சாட்டுசுமத்தப்படுகிறது .
5. It is alleged in the charge memo that the petitioner, without authority,
photocopied the meeting register of the staff of the office of the Assistant
Director, Kanyakumari District, and thereby violated Rule 10(1) of the Tamil
Nadu Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1973 (the Conduct Rules). It also
alleges that, in the audit slip issued by letter dated 23.07.2013, the petitioner
raised a wrong objection, unnecessarily wrote, on his own, to fix responsibility
on the Project Officer, and used words not in keeping with office practice, and
thereby violated Rule 20(3) of the Conduct Rules.
6. The third charge relates to the audit of Kuruthancode Panchayat Union
for 2011-12, which was completed on 08.02.2014. Under the circular dated
23.07.2012, the audit team was required to finalise the draft audit report within
two working days at the Assistant Director’s office and submit it, but the report
was not submitted. On 07.03.2014, the Joint Director directed the petitioner to
submit his explanation, and the petitioner undertook to submit the audit report
by 14.03.2014, but the report was submitted only on 21.03.2014. The petitioner
is thus alleged to have violated Rule 20(1) of the Conduct Rules.
7. The fourth charge is that the petitioner met the Director / second
__________
Page 6 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:22:15 pm )
WP(MD) No. 24595 of 2018
respondent, on 27.02.2014 to offer his explanation, despite being directed to
approach the third respondent, the Regional Deputy Director. When called
upon, by memorandum dated 05.03.2014, to explain why he had not followed
the said instruction, the petitioner allegedly furnished a false explanation that no
such direction had been given by the Director. Consequently, a show-cause
notice dated 15.03.2014 was issued, alleging that the petitioner had failed to
follow the instructions of the Director, disobeyed a superior officer and
furnished false information, thereby violating Rule 20(1) of the Conduct Rules.
8. It is the petitioner’s case that he submitted a detailed explanation dated
25.03.2014, wherein he categorically denied all the charges. However, without
accepting the explanation submitted by the petitioner, an Enquiry Officer was
appointed. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and submitted a report
holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. It is the
petitioner’s further case that the second respondent, without application of mind
and without weighing the evidence on record, accepted the findings of the
Enquiry Officer and passed an order dated 03.11.2017 imposing the punishment
of stoppage of annual increment with cumulative effect for six months,
inclusive of the period spent on leave.
9. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, preferred an appeal
__________
Page 7 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:22:15 pm )
WP(MD) No. 24595 of 2018
to the first respondent. The first respondent, after coming to the conclusion that
there was a procedural violation, passed an order dated 03.08.2017 in
G.O.No.288, setting aside the punishment imposed by the second respondent.
However, liberty was granted to pass fresh orders after affording the petitioner
an opportunity to offer his explanation to the findings of the Enquiry Officer.
Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation to the Enquiry
Officer’s report. However, without considering the said explanation, the second
respondent once again passed the same order, which is now impugned in the
writ petition.
10. The petitioner has exhausted the statutory right of appeal by
approaching the first respondent, and the first respondent has passed an order
dated 09.10.2018 confirming the order of the second respondent dated
03.11.2017. It is in the above factual narrative that the petitioner seeks to
impugn the orders in the writ petition. The grounds urged are that the charge
memo alleges misconduct which is actually false and trivial. The charge memo
was, according to the petitioner, an outcome of bias, as the senior audit officer,
Mr. Rathinam, had some axe to grind against him.
11. It is further contended that the enquiry was conducted in a slipshod
__________
Page 8 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:22:15 pm )
WP(MD) No. 24595 of 2018
manner and the procedure was not followed. The delay in submission of the
audit report was solely due to Mr. Rathinam, but it has been shown as if the
petitioner was responsible for the same. The allegation that the petitioner had
directly approached the second respondent is also false, and a perusal of the
charge memo itself would show that the narrative therein was somehow or other
intended to punish the petitioner.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the
disciplinary authority failed to consider the explanation offered by the petitioner
and that the Enquiry Officer’s report is perverse, as it is not supported by the
evidence on record. He would further contend that the first appellate authority,
namely, the first respondent, mechanically confirmed the order dated
03.11.2017 passed by the second respondent, without application of mind.
13. The learned Additional Government Pleader referred to the counter
dated 29.05.2019 and contended that the petitioner has been proceeded against
for acts of misconduct committed by him. It is set out in the counter that the
petitioner and the team, which comprised the entire audit party of four persons,
took 32 man-days to complete the audit report, much beyond the date fixed for
such purpose. The audit of Kuruthancode Panchayat Union was entrusted to the
said team and completed on 08.02.2014. However, the report was not submitted,
__________
Page 9 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:22:15 pm )
WP(MD) No. 24595 of 2018
and the petitioner, by letter dated 07.03.2014, undertook to submit it by
14.03.2014. The report was submitted only on 21.03.2014.
14. It is the case of the respondents that the head of the audit team,
namely, Mr. Rathinam, was also imposed with the punishment of stoppage of
increment for one year with cumulative effect, which included other charges
such as unauthorised leave, indiscipline, non-issue of audit slips and delay in
progression of the audit. It is the case of the respondents that the four charges
issued under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules had been properly inquired into after obtaining the explanation of
the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer had submitted a report dated 18.08.2014
holding that all the charges were proved, and the Director of Local Fund Audit
had imposed a penalty of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect. The
counter also states that the first respondent consulted the Tamil Nadu Public
Service Commission and after considering the recommendations, the first
respondent passed a speaking order confirming the penalty imposed by the
second respondent and dismissed the appeal as devoid of merit.
15. It is further contended that the impugned G.O.(D)No.294 was passed
after considering all the records and evidence relevant to the case. It is also
submitted in the counter that the petitioner’s case for promotion to the post of
__________
Page 10 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:22:15 pm )
WP(MD) No. 24595 of 2018
Assistant Director of Local Fund Audit was not considered because the
punishment of stoppage of increment for six months with cumulative effect was
in currency when the panel for the year was drawn for the purpose of
considering the eligible officers.
16. The charges, on their own, point out the nature of the misconduct
committed by the petitioner, and hence, the respondents contend that the
petitioner has not made out a case for interference with the punishment. It is
contended that the first respondent has considered the appeal dispassionately
and on the merits of the matter, after considering the submissions of the
petitioner, the orders passed by the second respondent, the material evidence
and the grounds raised in the appeal. Thus, the learned Additional Government
Pleader contends that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
17. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused
the records, including the charge memo, documents, typed-set papers and the
decisions relied upon by either side. It is pertinent to first examine the charges
levelled against the petitioner.
18. The first charge pertains to the petitioner having taken photocopies of
the meeting register of the staff of the office of the Assistant Director,
__________
Page 11 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:22:15 pm )
WP(MD) No. 24595 of 2018
Kanyakumari District, and thereby violated Rule 10(1) of the Tamil Nadu
Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1973. There is no overt evidence on
record, as reflected in the charge memo, to substantiate the charge. In the
absence of any overt evidence to substantiate the charge and in the absence of
any admission on the part of the petitioner, the charge cannot be sustained, as it
has not been established even on the touchstone of preponderance of probability
that the petitioner had indeed taken photocopies of certain documents. Even
assuming that the petitioner had photocopied the documents, in the absence of
any allegation that he had communicated or disclosed the register or any copy
thereof to an unauthorised person, the charge of violation of the Conduct Rules
cannot be sustained.
19. As far as the second charge is concerned, it alleges that the petitioner
violated Rule 20(3)(1) of the Conduct Rules on three grounds: (i) raising an
incorrect objection in the audit slip issued through a letter dated 23.07.2013; (ii)
independently addressing a letter, thereby unnecessarily fixing responsibility on
the Project Officer; and (iii) using words contrary to the prescribed office
procedure. The very purpose of a team conducting an audit is to act as a check
and balance on the financial expenditure of any authority, local body or local
authority. In the present case, the petitioner was part of an audit team which had
audited the said municipalities. If the petitioner, during the course of the audit,
had pointed out certain violations or commission of irregularities by the
__________
Page 12 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:22:15 pm )
WP(MD) No. 24595 of 2018
department or the agency or municipality being audited, the report would be
routed through the head of the team and thereafter submitted to the third
respondent and then to the second respondent, and thereafter placed before the
Government.
20. Therefore, if at all there are any objections which are not tenable or
which are subsequently overruled, the mere raising of such objections cannot be
the basis for issuing a charge memo, as there are hierarchical authorities above
the petitioner who would act as a check on such objections. It is not as if the
audit report is a singular activity undertaken by a single person, but a collective
effort of a team. There are also in-built mechanisms in the hierarchy, such as the
Audit Head, Assistant Director, Deputy Director, Joint Director and Director of
Local Fund Audit, who would peruse such objections and, at the appropriate
stage, may either delete them, amend them or drop them altogether.
21. In the present case, in the guise of there being some serious objections
raised by the petitioner, without considering whether such audit objections were
tenable or were liable to be dropped or deleted in the normal course of work, the
respondents cannot come to the conclusion that the petitioner had committed
misconduct. As stated supra, there are hierarchical supervisory officers above
the petitioner who may delete the objections by applying the appropriate law.
__________
Page 13 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:22:15 pm )
WP(MD) No. 24595 of 2018
Therefore, unless it is established that the audit objections were mala fide or
raised with an ulterior motive or to escape from the clutches of law or to
camouflage an activity, the charge cannot be sustained. Therefore, the finding
on the basis of the said charge appears to be perverse, as it does not stand to
reason. The petitioner has only discharged his official duty and, if at all, the
respondents find any lacunae in the report, it is always open to them to point out
the same, but a charge cannot be framed merely on the ground that the
objections raised were not tenable.
22. Further, the charge alleges that the petitioner used words contrary to
office procedure. However, the charge memo does not identify the words
alleged to be improper, nor have the Enquiry Officer or the disciplinary
authority specified the words in question or explained how their use constituted
misconduct. In the absence of such particulars, the petitioner was not afforded a
sufficiently clear basis to meet the allegation. A disciplinary finding cannot be
sustained on a vague allegation without identifying the conduct complained of
and establishing how it constitutes a violation of the applicable rules.
23. The third charge relates to the delay in submitting the audit report of
Kuruthancode Panchayat Union for 2011-12. The audit was completed on
__________
Page 14 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:22:15 pm )
WP(MD) No. 24595 of 2018
08.02.2014. The circular dated 23.07.2012 required all the members of the audit
team to sit at the Assistant Director’s office to finalise the draft report. The
report was a collective product of a team of four persons headed by Mr.
Rathinam, who was responsible for consolidating and submitting it. The counter
affidavit itself states that the audit team took 32 man-days to complete the work.
It is also admitted that the team head was separately proceeded against and
punished, inter alia, for the delay in the progress of the audit. However, the
petitioner alone was charged with the delay under Rule 20(1) of the Conduct
Rules. The petitioner had explained that the delay was attributable to the non-
cooperation of the senior auditor and a defect in the computer. Neither the
Enquiry Officer nor the disciplinary authority considered this explanation.
24. Further, there is no finding as to what portion of the delay was
attributable to the petitioner individually, particularly when the preparation and
finalisation of the audit report involved the collective efforts of the entire team.
In the absence of any finding that the petitioner had wilfully neglected his duties
or deliberately contributed to the delay, the mere delay in submitting the report
cannot, by itself, be construed as misconduct warranting disciplinary action
under Rule 20(1) of the Conduct Rules.
25. The fourth charge relates to the petitioner having approached the
__________
Page 15 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:22:15 pm )
WP(MD) No. 24595 of 2018
second respondent, the Director, directly, though he had allegedly been
instructed to approach the Regional Deputy Director. This is indeed a
procedural violation, but the same could be sorted out by issuing necessary
advice or an advisory and cannot, by itself, be made the subject matter of a
charge memo. In a disciplined hierarchical organisation, it is imperative that the
subordinates work within the system by following the prescribed procedure and
rules. The petitioner cannot bypass the hierarchy and report any audit objections
directly to the Director, bypassing the Joint Director and the officers below,
unless the objections relate to the conduct of the superior officers, in which case
he may necessarily have to bypass them.
26. This charge, on the very nature of the allegation, appears to be
baseless, as a mere procedural irregularity cannot become a serious charge
warranting the issuance of a charge memo and imposition of punishment. As
regards the nature of the report that was sent directly to the Director, the
disciplinary authority has not observed in the impugned order as to what was
the nature of the document that was sent to the second respondent. Without
arriving at a conclusion that the document was sent to the second respondent by
bypassing the hierarchical order, the finding cannot be sustained, as there is no
finding in the order that the document was one which ought not to have reached
the second respondent by bypassing the hierarchy. Further, the fourth charge
also alleges that the petitioner falsely denied having been given such an
__________
Page 16 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:22:15 pm )
WP(MD) No. 24595 of 2018
instruction by the Director. The alleged oral instruction is not supported by any
contemporaneous record, nor has the Enquiry Officer assigned any reason for
accepting that allegation. Therefore, the finding is, no doubt, perverse in the
present case.
27. In fine, all four charges are unsustainable, as the findings are not
supported by evidence, fail to establish the essential ingredients of the
misconduct alleged, and are perverse, with perversity writ large on the face of
the record. Normally, this Court would not interfere with an order imposing
penalty or punishment unless glaring inadequacies in the procedural fairness in
the conduct of the enquiry are pointed out. In the present case, on a perusal of
the charges, the explanation as well as the order imposing punishment dated
03.11.2017, it is apparent that the findings are perverse and that it is a case
where evidence is also totally lacking. Hence, this Court has no hesitation in
coming to the conclusion that the punishment imposed by the second
respondent and confirmed by the first respondent is liable to be set aside.
28. However, it is imperative to look at the order of the appellate
authority confirming the punishment. The punishment, vide order dated
09.10.2018, merely extracts the findings of the second respondent and, except
for a short discussion on the charges, does not narrate or examine the evidence
__________
Page 17 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:22:15 pm )
WP(MD) No. 24595 of 2018
before the Enquiry Officer or the explanation offered by the petitioner in respect
of each of the charges. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Narinder Mohan Arya
v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , (2006) 4 SCC 713 , has held that the
appellate authority is required to apply its mind to the relevant factors, including
whether the procedure prescribed under the applicable rules has been followed,
whether the findings of the disciplinary authority are warranted by the evidence
on record, and whether the punishment imposed is justified. The appellate
authority cannot merely skim over the charges but must independently consider
the relevant documents, evidence, explanation offered by the delinquent
employee and the enquiry report to determine whether the findings are
sustainable. Even where the appellate authority agrees with the disciplinary
authority, the order must demonstrate due application of mind to the relevant
factors and contentions. In the present case, the impugned order does not
disclose such independent consideration and is, therefore, vitiated by non-
application of mind.
29. In light of the aforesaid findings, this Court is of the opinion that the
charges levelled against the petitioner cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the
proceedings of the second respondent in No. Na.Ka.9351/Oo.Na1/2014 dated
03.11.2017, imposing the punishment of stoppage of annual increment with
cumulative effect for a period of six months, inclusive of the period spent on
leave, and G.O.(D) No.294 dated 09.10.2018 of the first respondent confirming
__________
Page 18 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:22:15 pm )
WP(MD) No. 24595 of 2018
the same, are hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the
petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Director, Local Fund Audit, on
par with his immediate junior, without reference to the punishment, since it is
now been set aside, and shall grant him all consequential benefits, if he is
otherwise eligible. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of
twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
30. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.
16-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
MSRM
__________
Page 19 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:22:15 pm )
WP(MD) No. 24595 of 2018
To
1. The Secretary To Government
Finance And Local Fund Department, Secretariat, Chennai.
2. The Director Cum Disciplinary
Authority, Local Fund Audit, Chennai-35.
3. The Joint Director,
Local Fund Audit, Kanyakumari Dist, At Nagercoil.
__________
Page 20 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:22:15 pm )
WP(MD) No. 24595 of 2018
RAJNISH PATHIYIL, J.
msrm
WP(MD) No. 24595 of 2018
16-10-2026
__________
Page 21 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:22:15 pm )