Specific misconduct allegations against a probationer require disciplinary enquiry before discharge.

The petitioner was appointed as an Office Assistant on 10 December 2021.

The authorities considered his service unsatisfactory and issued him a show-cause notice dated 22 August 2023.

The notice contained allegations concerning disproportionate assets, obtaining a bank loan without permission, and constructing a house without permission.

After rejecting his explanation, the Principal District Judge, Tiruppur, discharged him from service simpliciter by order dated 26 September 2023 in A.No.318/2023.

The Registrar General subsequently rejected the petitioner’s challenge and confirmed the discharge by order dated 20 June 2025 in ROC No.135506/2023/C1.

The petitioner therefore sought quashing of both orders and reinstatement with attendant benefits.

1. Whether an order of discharge simpliciter could lawfully be passed against the petitioner when the show-cause notice contained specific allegations of misconduct, without conducting a disciplinary enquiry?

2. Whether the impugned discharge was contrary to Rule 30(a) of the Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service Rules and the procedure prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules?

Rule 30(a) of the Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service Rules permits discharge of a probationer for general unsatisfactory work or incapacity after providing a reasonable opportunity to show cause, where no enquiry into specific charges is necessary; however, where discharge is proposed on the basis of specific charges, the charges must be framed and the detailed procedure under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules must be followed.

The Court applied the settled distinction between a genuinely innocuous discharge simpliciter and a punitive or stigmatic discharge: if the order is founded on allegations of misconduct, or if the allegations can be inferred as the foundation of the order, a disciplinary enquiry and an opportunity of defence are mandatory.

The Court relied on State of Punjab v. Constable Avtar Singh (Dead) through LRs, 2008 (7) SCC 40, including the principle that an apparently innocuous discharge may be treated as stigmatic where misconduct forms its foundation.

The Court found that the show-cause notice did not merely refer to general inefficiency or unsatisfactory work; it contained serious and specific allegations of misconduct, including disproportionate assets and unauthorised financial and construction activities.

Such allegations fell outside the limited scope of discharge for general unsatisfactory service under the note to Rule 30(a).

Since the allegations constituted specific misconduct under the applicable service rules, the respondents were required to frame charges and conduct an enquiry in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.

The respondents’ reliance on Constable Avtar Singh was held factually distinguishable because, in that case, the discharge order itself was not founded on allegations, whereas the present case involved specific allegations forming the basis of the action.

The failure to conduct the prescribed enquiry rendered the discharge legally unsustainable.

It accordingly set aside the Registrar General’s order dated 20 June 2025 and the Principal District Judge’s discharge order dated 26 September 2023.

The writ petition was allowed without costs.

The authorities were left at liberty to proceed against the petitioner on the specific allegations by following the procedure prescribed under the applicable Discipline and Appeal Rules.