All the aforesaid observations were not properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while passing the order in the Writ Petition and hence, we are inclined to interfere with the same. 9. In the result, the order passed in W.P.No.10103 of 2014, dated 16.06.2022, as well as G.O.(2D) No.255, Home (SC) Department, dated 02.07.2013, are quashed. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. [M.S.R.,J] [R.S.V.,J] 28.10.2025
2025:MHC:2444
Reserved on 25.09.2025
Pronounced on 28.10.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL
W.A.No.2305 of 2022 and
C.M.P.No.17620 of 2022
K.Prabakar …Appellant
Vs.
The Secretary,
Home (SC) Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. …Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 16.06.2022 made in W.P.No.10103 of 2014.
For Appellant : Mr.A.Kalaivanan
For Respondent : Mr.K.Suresh,
Government Advocate
JUDGMENT
M.S.RAMESH, J.
1.1. Originally, the appellant herein was serving as a Joint SubRegistrar in the Registration Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu. Whilst in service, he had participated in a regular recruitment process conducted by the Home Department and was appointed as a Deputy Superintendent of Police.
1.2. While the appellant was working as a Deputy Superintendent of Police, a charge memo dated 23.08.2007 was issued against him.
1.3. The first charge is that, while in his erstwhile service as a Joint
Sub-Registrar in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Virugambakkam, Chennai, he was actuated by a dishonest motive and had abused his actual position and authority.
1.4. The second charge is that, he had failed to supervise the works of his subordinates in issuing a correct encumbrance certificate.
1.5. While the first charge was held as ‘not proved’, the second charge was held as ‘proved’ by the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, through its report dated 28.09.2010. His further representation against the proven charge was rejected and a punishment of censure was imposed on him through a Government Order in G.O.(2D) No.255, Home (SC) Department, dated 02.07.2013.
1.6. When he had challenged the order of punishment before the
Writ Court in W.P.No.32951 of 2013, the same was dismissed on 16.06.2022, which order is put under challenge in this appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the duty of verifying the encumbrances in a certificate is that of the Assistant and Junior Assistant and the Sub-Registrar has no role to play in such verification and therefore, any wrong entries or omissions in the encumbrance certificate cannot be attributed as a dereliction of duty of a Sub-Registrar. He also referred to the observations made in the disciplinary cases for similar charges against the Sub-Registrars, exonerating them from their charges of wrong entries/omissions made in an encumbrance certificate.
3. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings had independently conducted an enquiry and submitted a report, holding the second charge as proved. Though the charge relates to supervisory lapse, the Disciplinary Authority had imposed a minimum punishment of censure. According to him, the learned Single Judge had rightly appreciated this aspect and rejected the Writ Petition. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the Writ Appeal also.
4. Before us, the learned counsel for the appellant has produced a copy of the proceedings issued by the Inspector General of Registration, dated 30.04.2008 and several similar orders of the Government, all of which dispenses with the responsibility of a Sub-Registrar against a charge for omission/wrong entries in encumbrance certificates. In the order dated 30.04.2008, the Inspector General of Registration has clearly recorded that while an encumbrance certificate is issued, the Assistant conducts a search for encumbrances and prepares the certificate. This certificate is further verified by the Junior Assistant. Neither the Registration Rules nor any Standing Order imposes a responsibility on the Sub-Registrar to verify or prepare an encumbrance certificate. All that a Sub-Registrar is required to do, when an application seeking an encumbrance certificate is made, is to subscribe his signature in the encumbrance certificate prepared and verified by the Assistant and Junior Assistant. In the absence of any duties assigned for verification, the omissions/wrong entries therein, cannot be attributed as a dereliction of duty or any other misconduct on the part of the Sub-Registrar.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has produced such similar copies of Government Orders in G.O.(D) No.477, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, dated 24.11.2010 and G.O.(D) No.13, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, dated 10.01.2012, which ratifies this legal position.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant also brought to our notice that the co-delinquents, who were imposed with similar charges, were exonerated, while the appellant alone, who had resigned from the post of Sub-Registrar and was directly appointed as a Deputy Superintendent of Police in the Police Department, has been imposed with a censure.
7. Thus, while the responsibility of a Sub-Registrar in connection with the entries in the encumbrance certificate exculpates him from any act of misconduct, the Government was not justified in imposing the punishment of censure in G.O.(2D) No.255, dated 02.07.2013 against the appellant herein. Above all, when the co-delinquents, who were employed in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Virugumbakkam, Chennai, were exonerated from the same charge of having committed a misconduct of omission/wrong entries in the encumbrance certificate, we fail to understand as to how the appellant herein alone could be found guilty of the charge and the punishment of censure be imposed on him. We do not find any rationale behind such a decision of the disciplinary authority in this regard. Such an act will also amount to an hostile discrimination, which is impermissible in law.
8. All the aforesaid observations were not properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while passing the order in the Writ Petition and hence, we are inclined to interfere with the same.
9. In the result, the order passed in W.P.No.10103 of 2014, dated
16.06.2022, as well as G.O.(2D) No.255, Home (SC) Department, dated
02.07.2013, are quashed. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands allowed.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[M.S.R.,J] [R.S.V.,J]
28.10.2025
Index:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes Speaking order hvk To
The Secretary,
Home (SC) Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
M.S.RAMESH, J. and R.SAKTHIVEL, J. hvk
Pre-delivery judgment made in
W.A.No.2305 of 2022
28.10.2025
![[09/01, 16:29] Sekarreporter: AR L Sundaresan asks them to read para 27 of the single judge’s order. Says, single judge had moulded the relief and quashed the CBFC chairman’s decision though the petitioner had not made any such prayer. He says application for certification was made only on Dec 18 [09/01, 16:30] Sekarreporter: ASG: The producers applied for certification only on December 18 and the CBFC communicated its decision to them on December 22. #JanaNayagan [09/01, 16:31] Sekarreporter: ASG: We produced the complaint received from Bombay and submitted it in a sealed envelope on the 7th. The matter was heard on the afternoon of the 7th, and orders were passed today. [09/01, 16:34] Sekarreporter: Chief Justice asks how can single judge pass an order without giving an opportunity for CBFC to file a counter affidavit? He asks how can the producer fix date of release even before issuance of censor certificate? Is CBFC not entitled to file 2/3 days time to file reply? he asks [09/01, 16:35] Sekarreporter: Chief Justice asks how can single judge pass an order without giving an opportunity for CBFC to file a counter affidavit? He asks how can the producer fix date of release even before issuance of censor certificate? Is CBFC not entitled to file 2/3 days time to file reply? he asks [09/01, 16:36] Sekarreporter: Rohatgi says that the movie was to be released on 9th Jan Court says the producers could’ve waited for the certificate CJ: You’re creating an urgency and putting pressure on court #JanaNayaganCensor #JanaNayagan #MadrasHC [09/01, 16:38] Sekarreporter: SG Tushar Mehta: If the court moulds the relief in this manner, it would effectively make the provisions of the Cinematograph Act meaningless and redundant. #JanaNayagan [09/01, 16:38] Sekarreporter: SG Tushar Mehta: If the court moulds the relief in this manner, it would effectively make the provisions of the Cinematograph Act meaningless and redundant. #JanaNayagan [09/01, 16:40] Sekarreporter: CJ: A false sense of urgency is being created by saying the film must be released on a particular date. The January 6 order was not under challenge, yet it has now been questioned. #JanaNayagan [09/01, 16:41] Sekarreporter: Mr. Satish Parasaran, also for KVN Productions LLP, requests the Chief Justice to kindly read the single judge’s order once again. [09/01, 16:41] Sekarreporter: Mr. Parasaran says, the CBFC regional officer had conveyed to the producer on December 22 that Board had decided to issue UA certificate. However, CJ says when certificate was not in hand, the producer should have waited for sometime than announcing the release date. [09/01, 16:42] Sekarreporter: CJ asks how can single judge simply direct CBFC to produce records and pass orders without giving time to file a counter affidavit. [09/01, 16:42] Sekarreporter: CJ says they will not allow the single judge’s order to be given effect to [09/01, 16:45] Sekarreporter: Mr. Rohatgi says on Dec 22 CBFC Regional Officer conveyed that examining committee had agreed to issue U/A 16+ certificate. So, the excisions were made and entire process required for certification got over on December 29 and therefore, the date of release was fixed. [09/01, 16:52] Sekarreporter: Order: The respondents contend that there was no real urgency in the matter. In any event, it is noted that no censor certificate had been granted to the respondents. [09/01, 16:55] Sekarreporter: Mr. Satish Parasaran requested the Chief Justice to upload the Division Bench’s order copy at the earliest. The CJ agreed, with a light-hearted laugh clearly aware that the production house needs the order copy to move the Supreme Court.](https://www.sekarreporter.com/wp-content/themes/hueman/assets/front/img/thumb-medium-empty.png)