Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 24 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: S. Pachaiappan, employee of Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB).
  • Respondents: 1) Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board represented by its Chairman, 2) Member Secretary of TNPCB.
  • Petition: W.P.No.26608 of 2013 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of certiorari and mandamus to quash the disciplinary order dated 16‑04‑2013 and the appellate order dated 27‑08‑2013, and to restore the petitioner’s increment.
  • Service Background: Joined TNPCB in 1997 (clerical); promoted to Assistant, Selection Grade in 2007; promoted to General Assistant in July 2012. From June 2011, subjected to frequent transfers, including to the Construction Wing on 12‑07‑2012.
  • Transfer Dispute: On 12‑10‑2012, TNPCB ordered transfer to District Environmental Laboratory, Tirunelveli. Petitioner challenged this transfer in WP.No.28685 of 2012; the Court stayed the transfer on 19‑10‑2012, allowing him to remain in the Construction Wing.
  • Charge Memo: On 26‑10‑2012, TNPCB issued a charge memo alleging that the petitioner, together with Mr. Meganathan (Engineer), demanded a bribe from contractor M/s. VIPSON DECOR to clear their bills. The allegation was based on a written complaint by Mr. Venkatesan of VIPSON DECOR.
  • Petitioner’s Explanation: Submitted on 09‑11‑2012, denying the allegations.
  • Enquiry Proceedings: An enquiry officer (subordinate of the Board) was appointed. The enquiry was conducted on 21‑01‑2013 and 05‑02‑2013, and the report was submitted on 27‑02‑2013. The petitioner raised objections on 05‑02‑2013 and requested reopening of evidence for cross‑examination on 07‑02‑2013; these objections were ignored.
  • Punishment Imposed: On 16‑04‑2013, the Board (2nd respondent) imposed a one‑year stoppage of increment with cumulative effect under the Conduct and Disciplinary Rules, 2010, without issuing a second show‑cause notice.
  • Appeal: The petitioner appealed to the Board’s appellate authority (1st respondent). The appellate authority dismissed the appeal on 27‑08‑2013 with a single‑line order, providing no reasons.
  • Respondents’ Counter‑Affidavit: Asserted that the charge memo was based on Mr. Venkatesan’s complaint, that the petitioner admitted calling Mr. Venkatesan, and that the enquiry was conducted fairly with sufficient opportunity for the petitioner.
  • Court’s Findings:
  • The complaint on which the charge memo was based was never produced in the enquiry, nor was a copy furnished to the petitioner.
  • The complainant’s evidence was contradictory and uncorroborated; the employee who allegedly called the complainant (Mr. Selvakumar) was not examined.
  • The enquiry officer’s report relied on only five documents, none of which substantiated the charge.
  • No evidence existed to justify the disciplinary action; the punishment was therefore imposed without proof.
  • The appellate authority’s order was a “non‑speaking” order, lacking any reasoning, contrary to Supreme Court precedent (e.g., Chairman, Disciplinary Authority v. Jagdish Sharan Varshney and Raj Kishore Jah v. State of Bihar).
  • The Board failed to issue a second show‑cause notice before imposing the punishment, violating the disciplinary and appeal service regulations.
  • Legal Principles Cited: Natural justice, procedural fairness, requirement of reasons in appellate orders, and the need for evidence before imposing disciplinary sanctions.

Final Outcome

  • The Court allowed the writ petition.
  • Both the disciplinary order dated 16‑04‑2013 and the appellate order dated 27‑08‑2013 are quashed.
  • TNPCB is directed to grant all monetary and consequential benefits due to the petitioner within three months of receipt of this order.
  • No costs are awarded.

Topics: Disciplinary Proceedings, Natural Justice