Madras High Court
P.Liyakathulla vs The Principal Secretary/ on 10 July, 2026
W.P.No.18702 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 02.07.2026
Pronounced on: 10.07.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
W.P.No.18702 of 2010
P.Liyakathulla
Record Clerk
O/o. Appellate Deputy Commissioner
(Commercial Taxes)
38/71 Poonkundranar Street
Karungalpalayam, Erode-3. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary/Commissioner of
Commercial Taxes, Chepauk
Chennai 600 005.
2.The Secretary to Government
Commercial Taxes & Registration Dept
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, calling for the records of the first
respondent relating to the order of punishment in Pro.No.E1/14725/2006
dated 06.07.2009 and the order of the first respondent in G.O.(D).No.193
1/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18702 of 2010
Commercial Taxes and Registration (A1) Department dated 09.06.2010 and
G.O.(D).No.205 Commercial Taxes and Registration (A1) Department dated
106.06.2010, quash the same and to direct the respondents to grant the
consequential service and monetary benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Madhu Balaaji
for M.Ravi
For Respondents : Mrs.Y.Kavitha
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
Heard, Mr.M.S.Madhu Balaaji, learned counsel for Mr.M.Ravi,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.Y.Kavitha, learned Additional
Government Pleader for the respondents and perused the records.
2. The petitioner by the present Writ Petition has assailed the action of
the first respondent in passing the order of punishment dated 06.07.2009
whereby the first respondent had imposed on him the punishment of
“stoppage of increment for a period of four years with cumulative effect”
under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (D & A) Rules, 1955, as
confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 09.06.2010.
2/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18702 of 2010
3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that while working as Record
Clerk in the Commercial Taxes Department, he was posted at Bannari
Commercial Taxes Checkpost in Sathyamangalam Taluk, Erode District; that
during the surprise check conducted on the said checkpost between 6.00
Hours to 8.30 Hours on 14.10.2003, he along with his Superior were found
to be collecting money as illegal gratification, while discharging the official
duties to do favours to the vehicles crossing the aforesaid checkpost; that he
was issued with the charge memo dated 14.08.2006 containing four charges;
that the first respondent/Disciplinary Authority on finding his explanation
not satisfactory, appointed enquiry officer to conduct enquiry into the
charges; that the enquiry Officer after conducting enquiry submitted his
report whereby except in respect of charge No.2 relating to possession of
unexplained cash on the person of the petitioner, found the other charges
namely Charge Nos.1, 3 & 4 ‘not proved‘; that the first respondent
disagreeing with the said enquiry report issued a disagreement note and
called upon the petitioner to submit his explanation; that he had submitted
his further explanation on 04.06.2009; that the first respondent without
considering his further explanation has passed the order of punishment dated
06.07.2009 on mere surmises and conjectures; and that the said order was
confirmed by the Appellate Authority.
3/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18702 of 2010
4. Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents.
5. The respondents by the counter affidavit mainly contended that
during the surprise check conducted by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption
officials at the Bannari Commercial Taxes Checkpost in Sathiyamangalam
Taluk, Erode District, on 14.10.2003, the authorities found unexplained
money which was recovered under Mazhar; that the Vigilance and Anti-
Corruption Authorities (i) recovered Rs.150/- from the window of the
Bannari Checkpost opposite to the checkpost officer seat; (ii) recovered a
sum of Rs.2,600/- from the pocket of the petitioner; (iii) recovered a sum of
Rs.810/- from the wooden almirah of the petitioner’s seat and (iv) recovered
a sum of Rs.180/-from Thiru.R.Sivakumar, an unauthorized person in the
checkpost.
6. The respondents further contended that having regard to the said
irregularity, charges were framed against the petitioner and after following
due procedure and affording opportunity to the petitioner, the first
respondent had passed the order dated 06.07.2009 imposing the punishment
on the petitioner.
4/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18702 of 2010
7. The respondents further contended that the petitioner aggrieved by
the aforesaid order of punishment, filed appeal to the Government and the
second respondent had rejected the appeal on 16.06.2010 as devoid of
merits.
8. The respondents further contend that disciplinary action was
initiated and punishment awarded to the petitioner based on the evidence;
that during the surprise inspection conducted by the Vigilance and Anti-
Corruption authorities, an amount of Rs.2,600/- was found in the pocket of
petitioner; that though the petitioner claimed that the said amount of
Rs.2,600/- recovered from him was meant for purchase of medicine, since
there were other amounts that were found in the wooden almirah of the
petitioner and also at the window of the checkpost and apart from the
presence of the unauthorised person, and as the petitioner could not give any
convincing explanation for all these amounts recovered at the check post, the
petitioner and other officials who were present at the check post alone are to
be held responsible; and that for the said reason, proceedings have been
initiated against all the officials present at the checkpost at the time of
inspection by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Authorities.
5/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18702 of 2010
9. The respondents also contended that the petitioner could not give
convincing explanation for being found with the unexplained money at the
checkpost and in the absence of any proof of authorized collection of the
said cash, the Disciplinary Authority is not precluded from drawing an
adverse inference in relation to the said amount having been collected
unauthorizedly in discharge of the duties by the petitioner, for initiating the
disciplinary action and imposing the punishment under the (D&A) Rules.
10. The respondents by the counter affidavit also contended that
having regard to the misconduct, the punishment imposed is neither
disproportionate nor shocking to the conscience of the Court for this Court
to interdict the said order. Contending as above, the respondents seek
dismissal of the Writ Petition.
11. In support of the above contentions, reliance is placed on the
following decisions:
1) Union of India and others Vs. P.Gunasekaran, reported in (2015)
2 SCC 610.
2) B.C.Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and others, reported in (1995)
6 SCC 749.
6/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18702 of 2010
3) State of Karnataka and another Vs. Umesh, reported in (2022) 6
SCC 563.
4) Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and others Vs.
Ajai Kumar Srinivastava, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 612.
12. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.
13. In a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India against the order of Disciplinary Authority imposing the punishment
which order has also been subjected of appeal, the Writ Court cannot act as
Second Appellate Authority by re-appreciating or re-evaluating the evidence.
The Writ Court is only required to see as to whether the disciplinary
proceedings have been conducted in accordance with the statutory
regulations by adhering to the principles of natural justice and the finding is
based on some evidence. If it is found that there is no infraction of the
procedure and the finding recorded is based on some evidence, the Court in
its exercise of power of Judicial review cannot ordinarily re-appreciate the
evidence and arrive at its own conclusion based on the said evidence or hold
that the Disciplinary Authority could have awarded lesser punishment. It is
only when the punishment imposed is so disproportionate to the offence that
7/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18702 of 2010
it shocks the conscience of the Court or if the conclusion of the Disciplinary
Authority is found to be based on other reasons, the Court can call upon the
Disciplinary Authority to re-consider the penalty imposed. Such an exercise
is to be undertaken only in exceptional circumstances by recording cogent
reasons and not in a routine manner. [See: Union of India Vs. Subrata Nath
reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1617].
14. Though the petitioner, by drawing the attention of this Court to the
findings of the enquiry officer in the enquiry report, sought to contend that
since the enquiry officer having found that out of the four charges, he was
satisfied that only one charge was found proved while the other charges were
found not proved, the Disciplinary Authority could not have and ought not to
have disagreed with the enquiry report to pass the impugned order, it is to be
noted that the findings of the enquiry officer are not final and the
disciplinary authority by recording reasons for his disagreement with such
findings, can call upon a delinquent to submit his explanation.
15. Insofar the proved charge is concerned, though the petitioner
claimed that the money found on his person was meant to purchase medicine
for his daughter, it is to be noted that the surprise check at the checkpost was
8/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18702 of 2010
conducted in the early hours i.e., between 6.00 hours and 8.30 hours which
implies that the petitioner was working in night shift at the checkpost and
was not coming from house or giving house in regular office hours for him
to purchase medicine. Further, both the enquiry officer and disciplinary
authority having found the said explanation not convincing based on
evidence, thus Court cannot reevaluate the evidence on the said issue.
16. Further the petitioner at the time of marking his attendance at the
time of reporting to duty was required to make an entry of the amount being
carried on his person in the remark column of the attendance register.
Admittedly, no such entry was made by the petitioner to contend that the
said money was in his possession even before he reported to duty on the
previous day/night.
17. Notwithstanding the fact that the said explanation of the petitioner
does not appeal to this Court far from being acceptable for more than one
reason, the same would also amount to this Court re-appreciating the
evidence which has been clearly held to be not permissible by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others, Vs. P.Gunasekaran,
reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610, wherein it was observed as hereunder:
9/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18702 of 2010
“12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully
disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate
authority on the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the
evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on charge I was
acceped by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by
the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings,
the High Court is not and cannot act as a second Court of first
appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article
226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into
reappreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see
whether:
(a) the enquiry is held by a competent
authority:
(b) the enquiry is held according to the
procedure prescribed in that behalf:
(c ) there is violation of the principles of
natural justice in conducting the proceedings;
(d) the authorities have disabled themselves
from reaching a fair conclusion by some
consideration extraneous to the evidence and
merits of the case;
(e) the authorities have allowed themselves
to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous
considerations;
(f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so
wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable
person could ever have arrived at such conclusion;
(g) the disciplinary authority had
erroneously failed to admit the admissible and
material evidence;
(h) the disciplinary authority had
erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which
influenced the finding;
(i) the finding of fact is based on no
evidence.
10/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18702 of 2010
13. Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the
High Court shall not:
(i) reappreciate the evidence;
(ii) interfere with the conclusion in the
enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in
accordance with law;
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence
on which findings can be based;
(vi) correct the error of fact however grave
it may appear to be;
(vii) go into the proportionality of
punishment unless it shocks its conscience.”
18. Though on behalf of the petitioner, it is sought to be contended
that the Disciplinary Authority had proceeded to impose punishment on the
petitioner on mere surmises and conjectures, since the Disciplinary
Authority had assumed that an amount of Rs.960/- other than Rs.2,600/-
should probably be the bribe money and on mere probability, the petitioner
cannot be awarded punishment, firstly, it is to be noted that in the
Disciplinary proceedings, the standard of proof required is that of
preponderance of probability and not beyond reasonable doubt as in a
criminal case.
11/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18702 of 2010
19. Since, the Vigilance and Anit-Corruption Authority having found
and recovered money during their inspection at the checkpost which was not
found to be entered in the records of the Commercial Taxes Department at
the checkpost and the explanation offered by the delinquent not being found
acceptable by the Disciplinary Authority, the High Court cannot sit as a
Second Court of Appeal regarding the decision of the Disciplinary Authority
to arrive at a different conclusion as to whether the explanation offered by
the delinquent is plausible or not.
20. In a challenge to order of Disciplinary Authority the Court is only
required to consider as to whether enquiry has been properly held and once it
is found that the enquiry has been held properly, the question of adequacy or
reliability of the evidence cannot be gone into or canvassed before the High
Court. [See: (i) Union of India Vs. Sardar Bahadur reported in 1972 (4)
SCC 618 (ii) Airports Authority of India Vs. Pradip Kumar Banerjee
reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1020]
21. It is trite law that the scope of Judicial review of
punishment/penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority by Court is
limited and is permissible only on limited grounds. The grounds of
12/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18702 of 2010
interference by the Writ Court has been summarized by the Apex Court in
the case of State of Karnataka and another Vs. Umesh, reported in (2022) 6
SCC 563, wherein the Apex Court had restricted the grounds of Judicial
Review to interfere with the punishment/penalty imposed by the
Disciplinary Authority, which are as hereunder:
“22. In the exercise of Juidicial review, the Court does
not act as an appellate forum over the findings of the
disciplinary authority. The Court does not reappreciate the
evidence on the basis of which the finding of misconduct has
been arrived at in the course of a disciplinary enquiry. The
Court in the exercise of judicial review must restrict its
review to determine whether:
(i) the rules of natural justice have been
complied with;
(ii) the finding of misconduct is based on
some evidence;
(iii) the statutory rules governing the
conduct of the disciplinary enquiry have been
observed; and
(iv)whether the findings of he disciplinary
authority suffer from perversity; and
(v) the penalty is disproportionate to the
proven misconduct.”
22. The Disciplinary Authority is the sole Judge of the facts and the
Appellate Authority, having co-extensive power to re-appreciate the
evidence, having found no ground to interfere with the order of punishment
imposed on the petitioner the Writ Court cannot reappreciating/reevaluation
arrive at different conclusion. [See: (i) B.C.Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India
13/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18702 of 2010
and others, reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749 (ii) State of Andhra Pradesh Vs.
Chitra Venkata Rao, reported in (1975) 2 SCC 557].
23. In the facts of the present case, since, the respondents have
conducted an enquiry before imposing the penalty on the petitioner and
having followed the statutory regulations and procedure and also having
afforded opportunity to the petitioner, it cannot be said that there is any
procedural infraction or violation of principles of natural justice for this
Court to interdict with the order of the Disciplinary Authority.
24. Further, even with regard to the award of punishment it is only
when the punishment awarded is grossly disproportionate to the proved
charge, shocking the conscience of this Court, interference is called for
which in the facts of the present case does not appear to be so.
25. Since, the petitioner, who was discharging his duties as Record
Assistant at the checkpost of the Commercial Taxes Department, was found
with unexplained money in his person and also at the work place under his
control, the conclusion arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority cannot be
said as without any basis or evidence or that the punishment awarded is
14/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18702 of 2010
harsh for this Court to set aside the same and remit back for re-
consideration.
26. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that
the impugned order of the first respondent as affirmed by the second
respondent does not suffer from any illegality or perversity or can it be said
that excessive punishment awarded shocking the conscience of this Court to
exercise its Judicial Review.
27. Accordingly, this Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. No
costs.
10.07.2026
Speaking order / Non-speaking order
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
dna
15/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18702 of 2010
To
1.The Principal Secretary/Commissioner of
Commercial Taxes, Chepauk
Chennai 600 005.
2.The Secretary to Government
Commercial Taxes & Registration Dept
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
16/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18702 of 2010
T. VINOD KUMAR, J.
dna
Pre-Delivery Order in
W.P.No.18702 of 2010
10.07.2026
17/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
