'Govt Servant Not Expected To Take Stand Against Govt' : Supreme Court Quashes Rs 25 Lakh Penalty On Officer Who Executed Govt Order

Observing that a government employee cannot be saddled with personal liability merely for acting in accordance with a government order that was operative at the relevant time, the Supreme Court has expressed surprise over the Government of Tamil Nadu's silence over the penalty imposed on its employee for implementing a state government's order.

A bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan was hearing an appeal filed by the former Director of Collegiate Education, Tamil Nadu, against a High Court order which had imposed a total cost of Rs. 50 lakhs, Rs. 25 lakhs on the State, and another Rs. 25 lakhs to be recovered personally from the appellant.

The controversy arose from the appellant's refusal to approve recruitment beyond 11 Group-D posts in a private women's college, based on Government Order No. 219 dated October 24, 2013, which imposed restrictions on recruitment. The High Court had faulted the authorities for delayed salary payments to certain employees and held the appellant personally responsible.

Setting aside the cost imposed on the officer by the High Court, the Supreme Court observed that the High Court failed to appreciate that a government servant is bound to act in accordance with prevailing government policy and cannot be expected to take a stand contrary to the Government itself.

“We are constrained to observe that the High Court should have been conscious of the fact that a government servant cannot be made to take a stand against the Government…”, the court observed.

The bench noted that the officer had acted in accordance with the operative government order and declined approval only because recruitment beyond 11 posts was not permitted at the time. The later approval granted by the State came only after the relevant government order had been quashed by the High Court

“Thus, in our considered opinion, no adverse liability can be fastened on the appellant, much less of imposition of heavy cost of Rs.25,00,000,” the Court held.

Moreover, the Court expressed surprise over the state government's silence at the time of imposition of the cost on the Appellant by the High Court, despite he acted to implement the state govt. order.

“We are surprised as to why the State, who was the appellant before the High Court when the impugned order was passed, has chosen to remain silent and inactive despite an officer, who had acted as per law on the relevant day was not supported by the State Government by standing for him.”, the court observed.

Extending the same reasoning to the State, the Court held that since the delayed approvals stemmed from a later policy change following the quashing of the earlier government order, the State too deserved relief.

Resultantly, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the imposition of a high cost of Rs. 25 Lakhs on the Appellant, as well as on the State giving a reminder to the State of its duty as custodian of the public exchequer, observing that ultimately such payments burden innocent taxpayers.

Cause Title: C. POORNA CHANDRAN VERSUS THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 508

Click here to download order

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. S. Sriram, Sr. Adv. Mr. A. Karthik, AOR Mr. C. Vigneswaran, Adv. Ms. Smrithi Suresh, Adv. Mr. Sugam Agrawal, Adv. Ms. Veera Mahuli, Adv. Ms. Nanditha S, Adv. Mr. Saaketh Kasibhatla, Adv. Mr. Kartik Brundavan, Adv. Mr. Dharun Lakshman, Adv. Mr. Vinay Krishna Kodali, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, Sr. A.A.G. Ms. Misha Rohatgi, AOR Mr. Nakul Mohta, Adv. Mr. Rohit K. Debnath, Adv. Ms. Devyani Gupta, Adv. Ms. Sommya Kashyap, Adv. Mr. C. Solomon, AOR (Not present)