Madras High Court Modifies Punishment Imposed on Retired Junior Bailiff for False Summons Endorsement. Reduction in Pay Scale by One Stage for One Year Without Cumulative Effect and Without Affecting Pension Held Proportionate for Proven Misconduct Under Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955.

High Court: Madras High Court Bench: Principal
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, K. Anbazhagan, joined the judicial department as an Office Assistant in 1983 and was promoted to Junior Bailiff in 1990. He retired on 30.11.2024 after 41 years of service. A charge memo dated 12.12.2023 was issued under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955, alleging that he had falsely endorsed a summons in O.S.No.62 of 2023 by stating that the party Selvaraj had died, while the party later appeared alive before the Lok Adalat with identity proofs. The petitioner explained that there were two individuals with the same name and he made a mistake due to urgency. An enquiry was conducted, three witnesses were examined, and the enquiry officer submitted a report on 03.08.2024 holding the charge proved. The disciplinary authority concurred and, by order dated 26.11.2024, imposed the punishment of reduction of basic pay from Level-7 Index 35 to Level-7 Index 34. The petitioner challenged this order in a writ petition before the Madras High Court, contending that the mistake was bona fide, the punishment was imposed just before retirement affecting pension, and that the authority had initially considered a minor punishment but imposed a major one. The respondents argued that the act had serious civil consequences and the punishment was proportionate. The court held that service of summons is a vital duty and a false endorsement cannot be a minor lapse. It found no fault with the disciplinary proceedings. However, noting the long service and the authority's own initial view that a cut in increment was appropriate, the court modified the punishment. It ordered reduction in pay scale by one stage for one year without cumulative effect and without affecting pension. If the punishment could not be given effect due to retirement, the monetary equivalent could be calculated and withheld as per the proviso to Rule 8(4) of the Rules. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

Headnote

A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Punishment for Misconduct - Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955, Rule 17(b), Rule 8(iv) - The court examined the disciplinary proceedings against a Junior Bailiff who returned summons with a false endorsement that the party had died. The enquiry was conducted fairly, and the charge was held proved. The court found no ground to interfere with the findings. Held that the serious nature of the misconduct, involving civil rights of litigants, justified disciplinary action (Paras 9-14).

B) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Modification of Punishment - Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955, Rule 8(iv), proviso to Rule 8(4) - The disciplinary authority had initially decided on a minor punishment of cut in increment without cumulative effect but imposed reduction in pay due to the petitioner's impending retirement. The court modified the punishment to reduction in pay by one stage for one year without cumulative effect and not affecting pension. If the punishment could not be implemented due to retirement, the monetary value could be withheld from emoluments as per the proviso. Held that this modification balanced the proven misconduct with the long 41-year service and the timing of retirement (Paras 15-19).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the punishment of reduction in pay imposed on a retiring bailiff for falsely endorsing a summons as 'party died' is proportionate; whether the disciplinary authority's change of punishment from cut in increment to reduction in pay due to retirement is valid; and whether the punishment should be modified considering long service.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The writ petition was disposed of with modification. The punishment of reduction in pay was modified to reduction in pay scale by one stage for one year without cumulative effect and without affecting pension. If the punishment could not be given effect due to retirement, the monetary value could be calculated and withheld from emoluments as per proviso to Rule 8(4) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955.

Law Points

  • Legal points not extracted
  • disciplinary proceedings
  • reduction in pay
  • minor punishment
  • cut in increment
  • retirement
  • pension
  • natural justice
  • false endorsement
  • service of summons
  • Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules
  • 1955
  • Rule 8(iv)
  • proviso to Rule 8(4)
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2025 LawText (MAD) (03) 77

W.P.No.3205 of 2025

2025-03-28

R. Subramanian, G. Arul Murugan

Citation not available, 2025:MHC:830

Mr. N.U. Pressanna (For Petitioner), Mr. J. Chandran Sundar Sashi Kumar (Standing Counsel for Respondents)

K. Anbazhagan

1. The Registrar General, Madras High Court; 2. The Principal District Judge, Cuddalore; 3. The Additional Sub Judge, Virudhachalam; 4. The Principal District Munsif, Tittagudi

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 226 challenging disciplinary order imposing reduction in pay

Remedy Sought

Quashing of the punishment order and re-fixation of basic pay at Level 7 Index 35 with consequential retirement benefits

Filing Reason

Punishment of reduction in pay was imposed days before retirement for alleged false endorsement on summons

Previous Decisions

The disciplinary authority imposed the punishment after enquiry; no prior judicial order

Issues

Whether the punishment of reduction in pay imposed on a retiring employee for false endorsement on summons was proportionate and sustainable, particularly when the disciplinary authority initially considered a cut in increment

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the endorsement was a bona fide mistake, he had an unblemished record of 41 years, the punishment at the time of retirement affected pension, and the authority imposed a major punishment when it had intended a minor one. Respondents contended that the act had serious civil consequences, the enquiry was properly conducted, and the punishment was proportionate to the proven charge.

Ratio Decidendi

When a disciplinary authority finds a charge proved but initially considers a minor punishment like cut in increment and due to impending retirement imposes a reduction in pay, the court may modify the punishment to avoid disproportionate effect on pension, especially for long-serving employees. The proviso to Rule 8(4) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955 allows the recovery of monetary value if the punishment cannot be implemented due to retirement.

Judgment Excerpts

Serving of summons is a very vital part of the litigation process. Only on the service of the summons, the party to the litigation is informed that a lis has been instituted against him, for which he has to respond to the Court. When the litigant was alive, the endorsement made by the petitioner in the summons that Selvaraj died and reported to the Court cannot be considered a minor lapse, especially when the civil rights of the parties are involved in litigation. the punishment imposed could be slightly modified to the effect that reduction in pay scale by one stage for one year, without cumulative effect, not affecting his pension.

Procedural History

Petitioner joined the judicial department as Office Assistant on 09.05.1983 and was promoted to Junior Bailiff in 1990. A charge memo dated 12.12.2023 was issued under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955, alleging false endorsement on summons. Petitioner replied on 21.12.2023. An enquiry officer was appointed, and after examining witnesses, submitted a report on 03.08.2024 holding the charge proved. The disciplinary authority concurred and passed order on 26.11.2024 imposing reduction in pay from Level-7 Index 35 to Index 34. Petitioner retired on 30.11.2024 and filed the writ petition challenging the punishment. The High Court admitted the writ petition, heard arguments, reserved judgment on 21.03.2025, and pronounced on 28.03.2025, modifying the punishment.

Acts & Sections

  • Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955: Rule 17(b), Rule 8(iv), proviso to Rule 8(4)
  • Constitution of India, 1950: Article 226
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes FIR in Section 295-A IPC Case for Lack of Deliberate and Malicious Intention. Exhibition of Slippers with Images of Hindu Deities Did Not Disclose Intent to Outrage Religious Feelings Under Section 295-A of Indian Penal Code...
Related Judgement
High Court KAHC010023912010_1