Madras High Court
M. Indira Gandhi vs The Registrar General on 11 August, 2025
Author: R. Suresh Kumar
Bench: R. Suresh Kumar
W.P. No.27860 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.08.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
W.P. No.27860 of 2025
and W.M.P. No.31204 of 2025
M. Indira Gandhi
Bench Clerk Grade-III,
Court of Small Causes
(Deputed to work in Record Section),
Chennai-600 104. ...Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Registrar General,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai.
2. The Chief Judge,
Court of Small Causes,
High Court Buildings,
Chennai - 600 104. ..... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India,
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling the connected
records and to quash the order passed in No.487A/2023 dated 30.11.2023 by
the 2nd respondent confirming the order in Appeal passed by the 1st
respondent i.e., Registrar General, High Court of Madras in Roc.
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2025 01:55:19 pm )
W.P. No.27860 of 2025
No.38474/2024/C1 dated 04.04.2025.
For Petitioner : Mr A. Thangamani
For Respondents : Ms. N.K. Kanthimathi
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by P.DHANABAL,J.) This Writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the 2nd respondent in No.487A/2023 dated 30.11.2023 and confirmed by the 1st respondent vide order passed in the appeal in Roc. No.38474 / 2024/ C1 dated 04.04.2025.
2. The Writ petitioner herein has been working as Bench Clerk Grade- II, Court of Small Causes, Chennai and she joined in the Judicial Ministerial service and rendered 12 years service. While so, the following charges were framed against the petitioner:
Charge I:
That you, Tmt. M. Indira Gandhi, Bench Clerk Grade-II, Court of Small Causes, Chennai while working in the IX Court of Small Causes, Chennai had misplaced the petition in M.P. No.2/2022 in R.C.A. No.213/2021, kept the restoration petition in R.C.A. No.793/2017 in the bundle of copy applications and kept some of the petitions in R.C.A. No.114/2020 and 115/2020 in some 2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2025 01:55:19 pm ) W.P. No.27860 of 2025 other case bundles and further on 15.06.2022 at about 7 p.m., when the steno- typist of the said Court asked you, to make entries in the MP Register note in order to make entries relating to the cases in R.C.A. No.105/2021 to R.C.A. No.110/2021 in CIS Software, you had quarelled with him and abused him by using filthy language. The above acts of yourself shows your gross negligence, dereliction of duty and failure to maintain integrity and devotion to duty in violation of Rule 20 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973 and thereby you have rendered yourself liable to be proceeded under Rules 17(b) of TNCS (D&A) Rules.
Charge-II That you, Tmt. M. Indira Gandhi, Bench Clerk Grade-II, Court of Small Causes, Chennai on 15.09.2022, while working in the Nazir Section, did not discharge your duty properly and had mingled the served processes which had to be segregated district wise and when you were instructed by the Central nazir and Deputy Nazir to do the work properly, you had disobeyed their instructions and had shouted loudly and quarelled with them and went away by saying that you will commit suicide by jumping from the terrace and the said acts of yourself had caused disturbance to the official work not only in 3/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2025 01:55:19 pm ) W.P. No.27860 of 2025 the Nazir Section but also in the adjacent Courts in the said floor. The above acts of yourself shows gross misconduct, negligence and dereliction of your official duty and also failure to maintain integrity and devotion to duty in violation of Rule 20 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1973 and thereby, you have rendered yourself liable to be proceeded under Rules 17(b) of TNCS (D&A) Rules.
Charge-III That you, Tmt. M. Indira Gandhi, Bench Clerk Grade-II, Court of Small Causes, Chennai while working in the Nazir Section, did not discharge your duty properly and had mingled the served processes which had to be segregated district-wise and when you were instructed by the Central Nazir and Deputy Nazir to do the work properly, you had disobeyed their instructions and also refused to receive the Official Memorandum issued to you in Dis. No.5561/2022 dated 23.09.202 through Tapal Section Staff on 11.10.2022. This act of yourself shows your gross misconduct and insubordination thereby failing to maintain integrity and devotion to duty in violation of Rule 20 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973 and thereby, you have rendered yourself liable to be proceeded under Rule 17(b) of TNCS (D&A) Rules.
4/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2025 01:55:19 pm ) W.P. No.27860 of 2025
3. The above said charges were replied by the Writ petitioner. However, the 2nd respondent ordered for disciplinary enquiry and the Enquiry Officer, after conducting enquiry proceedings, rendered findings that the charges against the delinquent were proved. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority, the 2nd respondent herein awarded punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect as per Rule 8(iii) of the TNCS (D&A) Rules. Thereafter, the Writ petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent also confirmed the punishment awarded by the 2nd respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had joined in the Judicial Ministerial service and put 12 years of service. While so, charges were framed against the petitioner under Rule 17(b) of TNCS (D&A) Rules on 19.10.2022 and the same were properly explained. In spite of that, the Disciplinary Authority ordered for disciplinary enquiry by appointing an Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer erroneously rendered findings that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved and the Disciplinary Authority also without considering the evidences in a 5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2025 01:55:19 pm ) W.P. No.27860 of 2025 proper perspective manner, accepted the findings of the Inquiry Officer and awarded punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect. The charges against the petitioner are that when she was working as Bench Clerk Grade-II in the IX Court of Small Causes, Chennai, she misplaced the petition in M.P. No.2/2022 in RCA No.213/2021, kept the restoration petition in RCA No.793/2017 in the bundle of copy applications and kept some of the petitions in RCA No.114/2020 and 115/2020 in some other case bundle and further on 15.06.2022, when the Steno-Typist asked the petitioner to make entries in the MP Register, she made quarrel with him and abused in filthy language. Thereafter, on 15.09.2022, when she was working in the Nazir Section, she did not discharge her duty properly and had mingled the served processes which had to be segregated District-wise. When the same was enquired by the Central Nazir, she disobeyed his instructions and had shouted loudly and quarelled with them and refused to receive the Official Memorandum dated 23.09.2022 issued on the petitioner through Tapal Section Staff on 11.10.2022. The petitioner suitably replied and denied the charges. In spite of that, without considering the petitioner's explanation, the Disciplinary Authority ordered for disciplinary enquiry. During the enquiry, on the side of the department, they examined 11 witnesses and marked 14 exhibis and on the side of the petitioner, she was examined herself 6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2025 01:55:19 pm ) W.P. No.27860 of 2025 as a witness and no documents were marked. The Inquiry Officer, without considering the evidence in a proper perspective manner, erroneously rendered findings that the charges were proved. Even though PW1, who is the complainant in this case, wanted to withdraw the complaint, the Inquiry Officer failed to take into account of that evidence and came to a wrong conclusion. The Appellate Authority also failed to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner. Therefore, the orders of punishment awarded by the 2nd respondent and confirmed by the 1st respondent in the appeal are liable to be quashed.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioner misplaced the records and also mingled the case papers with other bundles and also she disobeyed the order of the Stenographer and made quarrel with him and while she was working in the Nazir section, she committed some delinquencies and when the same was questioned by the Central Nazir, she made quarrel with him, thereby charges were framed against the petitioner. Thereafter, she also submitted her explanation. Being not satisfied with the explanation, the Disciplinary Authority ordered for disciplinary enquiry by appointing an Inquiry Officer. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer conducted inquiry by examining the witnesses. Before the Inquiry 7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2025 01:55:19 pm ) W.P. No.27860 of 2025 Officer, on the side of department, they examined 11 witnesses and 14 documents were marked. Based on the evidences, the Inquiry Officer rendered findings and by accepting the Inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority awarded punishment to the delinquent and thereafter, the Appellate Authority has also confirmed the order of the Disciplinary Authority. Therefore, there is no any ground to interfere with the order passed by the Authorities.
6. This Court heard both sides and perused the entire materials available on record.
7. In this case, the petitioner was charged by the 2nd respondent. The charges against the petitioner are that she misplaced some records and mingled the papers with some other case bundles and when the Steno-Typist asked the petitioner to make entries in the MP Register, she quarrelled with him and abused him in filthy language and when she was working in the Nazir Section, she did not discharge her duties properly and mingled the certified papers which had to be segregated district-wise and when the same was questioned by the Central Nazir and Deputy Nazir, she made quarrel with them and disobeyed the instructions of the Nazir and refused to receive the 8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2025 01:55:19 pm ) W.P. No.27860 of 2025 Official Memorandum dated 23.09.2022 issued to her from Tapal Section on 11.10.2022. For the above said charges, she submitted her reply by denying the above said allegations. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent, the Disciplinary Authority, being not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, ordered for disciplinary enquiry by appointing an Inquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer.
8. The Inquiry Officer had conducted inquiry proceedings and on the side of the department, they examined 11 witnesses and marked 14 documents. On the side of the delinquent, she was examined herself as a witness and no documents were marked. After analysing evidences adduced on either side, the Inquiry Officer rendered findings that the charges against the delinquent were proved. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the findings of the Inquiry Officer and served copy of the Inquiry report to the petitioner and called for further explanation. Thereafter, awarded punishment of withholding of increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached the High Court by way of an appeal on administrative side and this Court also passed a reasoned order by upholding the punishment. The 2nd respondent, being the Disciplinary Authority, passed a reasoned order by accepting the findings 9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2025 01:55:19 pm ) W.P. No.27860 of 2025 rendered by the Inquiry Officer and the Appellate Authority has also passed a reasoned order by analysing the evidences adduced on either side. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner participated in the disciplinary enquiry proceedings and no violation of principles of natural justice. Moreover, the department side witnesses have categorically deposed about the delinquency of the petitioner and no any further evidence adduced by the petitioner and she was alone examined herself as witness and failed to examine any other witnesses to rebut the department side witnesses. Therefore, both the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority are based on the records and are very reasoned orders. Therefore, there is no any infirmity or illegality found in the above said orders and there are no grounds to interfere with the orders passed by the Authorities.
9. In view of the above discussions, this Court is of the opinion that the Writ petition has no merits and deserves to be dismissed.
10. Accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(R.S.K.J.) & (P.D.B.J) 11.08.2025 10/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2025 01:55:19 pm ) W.P. No.27860 of 2025 Index : Yes/No Speaking order/non-speaking order mjs To
1. The Registrar General, High Court of Madras, Chennai.
2. The Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, High Court Buildings, Chennai - 600 104.
R. SURESH KUMAR,J and P.DHANABAL,J mjs 11/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2025 01:55:19 pm ) W.P. No.27860 of 2025 W.P. No.27860 of 2025 11.08.2025 12/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2025 01:55:19 pm )