Clear Limitation Of 6 Months Provided Under Rule 36 Of TN Civil Services Rules For Revising Punishment Orders: Supreme Court Rejects State’s SLP

The Supreme Court was considering a Special Leave Petition filed by the State. The issue before the Apex Court was whether the delay occasioned in revising and enhancing the punishment imposed, under Rule 36 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, vitiates the order itself.

The Division Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice K. Vinod Chandran explained, “First, we notice Rule 36 of the Discipline and Appeal Rules, which is extracted in the impugned judgment. There is a clear limitation of six months provided for revision to be made suo motu or otherwise, calling for the records of any enquiry and after consultation with the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, to cause revision of the orders of punishment already passed. When there is a six-month limitation provided for the decision to be taken, it cannot be said that after the decision is taken, the State could take its own sweet time to issue the show cause notice.”

“The proposal to revise and enhance the punishment if not immediately communicated to the employee, the delay and the change in circumstances, as in this case, would inure to the benefit of the delinquent, by reason first of the limitation and then the prejudice occasioned and more importantly this would weaken and erode the State’s authority and undermine public interest”, it added.

Factual Background

The respondent, while continuing as a supervisor, was charge-sheeted, and a disciplinary proceeding was initiated in the year 2012. Pursuant to the report of the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority passed an order imposing a punishment of stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect in 2017. The report of the Enquiry Officer came in the year 2013, four years after which the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment in 2017. The respondent did not challenge the order of punishment. The punishment imposed of stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect, attained finality and was suffered in full. Later, a show-cause notice was issued under Rule 36 of the Discipline and Appeal Rules seeking to enhance the punishment and convert it to a major punishment of removal from service.

The respondent immediately replied, requesting the action to be dropped. Much later, the respondent was removed from service on January 4, 2021.

The respondent attained the age of superannuation in May 2020. The Court was informed that the pandemic was raging throughout the country, and the respondent along with other employees, continued, and it was during such continuance that the order of removal from service was passed.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, stated, “Though, we are not convinced that the extension beyond retirement on exigency; which Mr. R.S Anandan, learned counsel for the respondent submits was after the date of retirement, would necessarily enable the State to continue the disciplinary proceedings beyond superannuation, without a clear rider to that effect, we would not dwell upon it since even on the ground stated by the High Court, we are not convinced that the SLP can be entertained.”

Considering that there is a clear limitation of six months provided for revision to be made suo motu or otherwise as per Rule 36 of the Discipline and Appeal Rules, the Bench noted that the show-cause notice was issued on February 27, 2020, and the decision arrived at on January 4, 2021, much beyond the limitation of 6 months. The Bench was of the view that there was no semblance of the pandemic in 2018 nor even an apprehension of such a mishap befalling the world.

“The first show cause notice issued to the respondent was on 27.02.2020. Again, despite reply having been given by the respondent on 19.03.2020, the order imposing the punishment of removal from service was passed on 04.01.2021. The State obviously had dragged its feet at every instance seriously prejudicing the respondent. The statutory mandate of revision in 6 months also stood violated”, it added.

Noting that in the year 2019, after the rigour of punishment of two years, his two increments were restored since the stoppage was without cumulative effect, the Bench stated that the respondent was imposed with two punishments for the very same misconduct. Finding the order revising the earlier punishment apart from the bar of limitation was arbitrary and unreasonable, the Bench rejected the Special Leave Petition and restored the respondent with all benefits of service, and retirement with every due.

Cause Title: The Secretary to Government, Social Welfare And Nutritious Meal Programme (SW1) Department v. P. Perumal (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1470)

Click here to read/download Order