The Secretary to Government, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme (SW1) Department & Anr. vs P. Perumal

Reportable 2025 INSC 1470 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Special Leave Petition (C) No.3256 of 2025

The Secretary to Government, Social Welfare And Nutritious Meal Programme (SW1) Department & Anr. …Petitioners Versus P. Perumal …Respondent

ORDER

1. The controversy raised in the above Special Leave

Petition, by the State, is only as to whether the delay

occasioned in revising and enhancing the punishment

imposed, under Rule 36 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services

(Discipline and Appeal) Rules (for short the “Discipline and

Appeal Rules”), vitiates the order itself.

2. The High Court found that the communication of the

proposal for revision and the order of enhancement of the

punishment, to one of dismissal, was grossly delayed. The

admitted facts are that the respondent while continuing as Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SAPNA BISHT Supervisor was charge-sheeted and a disciplinary Date: 2025.12.19 10:41:40 IST Reason:

proceeding was initiated in the year 2012. Pursuant to the

Page 1 of 6 SLP (C) No. 3256 of 2025 report of the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority passed

an order imposing a punishment of stoppage of increment for

two years without cumulative effect, on 13.11.2017. It is

pertinent to note that the report of the Enquiry Officer was in

the year 2013, four years after which the disciplinary authority

imposed the punishment in 2017. Be that as it may, the

respondent did not challenge the order of punishment on any

grounds and not at all on the aspect of delay. The punishment

imposed of stoppage of increment for two years without

cumulative effect, attained finality and was suffered in full.

3. Later, a show-cause notice was issued on 27.02.2020

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

on 19.03.2020, requesting the action proposed to be dropped.

Much later, the respondent was removed from service on

04.01.2021.

4. Admittedly, the respondent attained the age of

superannuation in May 2020. We, hence, put a query to Mr.

Raju Ramachandran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for

the petitioner-State as to whether the respondent’s retirement

was subject to continuation of proceedings, failing which the Page 2 of 6 SLP (C) No. 3256 of 2025 employer-employee relationship ceases on superannuation.

Learned Senior Counsel, on instructions clarified that since at

that point of time the pandemic was raging throughout the

country, the respondent along with other employees, were

continued and it was during such continuance that the order of

removal from service was passed.

5. 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.

6. To explain the delay Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned

Senior Counsel specifically pointed to Rule 36 of the Discipline

and Appeal Rules, which does not provide any limitation for

the purpose of making such revision. The decision to revise

the punishment was taken on 04.12.2018 within 5 months of the

order of punishment issued is the contention. The further

proceedings were delayed due to covid and the usual

Page 3 of 6 SLP (C) No. 3256 of 2025 rigmarole to which every governmental action is susceptible,

is the argument.

7. 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 primary fallacy

in the said argument is that on 04.12.2018, there was only a

proposal to revise the earlier order, which proposal cannot

crystalize into a decision unless the employer is given a

reasonable opportunity of hearing, which Rule 36 itself

mandates. It is to this end that a show-cause notice is

contemplated, which was issued on 27.02.2020 and the

decision arrived at on 04.01.2021, much beyond the limitation

of 6 months.

8. The proposal to revise and enhance the punishment if not

immediately communicated to the employee, the delay and Page 4 of 6 SLP (C) No. 3256 of 2025 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.

9. 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.

10. We have to also pertinently observe that, by the time the

show-cause notice was issued on 27.02.2020, the respondent

had already suffered the punishment imposed of stoppage of

increment for two years without cumulative effect. In the year

2019, after the rigour of punishment of two years, his two

increments were restored since the stoppage was without

Page 5 of 6 SLP (C) No. 3256 of 2025 cumulative effect. The respondent hence was imposed with

two punishments for the very same misconduct.

11. The order revising the earlier punishment for all the

above reasons, apart from the bar of limitation, is arbitrary,

unreasonable and unconscionable and not expected in

fairness; especially from the State who should be a model

employer.

12. The Special Leave Petition stands rejected, restoring the

respondent; with all benefits of service, and retirement with

every dues.

13. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

…….……….……………………. J.

(AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH)

…………………………………. J.

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

NEW DELHI DECEMBER 11, 2025.

Page 6 of 6 SLP (C) No. 3256 of 2025