The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has granted relief to the family of a deceased man who had been dismissed from service in 2008. The man died during the pendency of the appeal and his legal heirs came on record. The court held that the very framing of the charge was fatally defective.The court was hearing an appeal filed by S. Ramamoorthy. In 2001, he was working as Cooperative Sub-Registrar (Public Distribution System) at Tirumangalam in Madurai district. On December 31, 2001, he convened a monthly review meeting for salesmen of fair price shops.The officials of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption conducted a raid when the meeting was going on. A sum of ₹2,040 was recovered from him and statements were obtained from the Sub-Registrar and the salesmen. A charge memo was issued to Ramamoorthy for receiving illegal gratification amounting to ₹6,725 from the salesmen during the meeting.Subsequently, he was dismissed from service in 2008. In 2019, a Single Bench of the court dismissed his petition. In 2020, he filed the present appeal.A Division Bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and K.K. Ramakrishnan said the only charge against him was that he collected a sum of ₹6,725 as illegal gratification from the salesmen, and the authorities did not trap him red-handed. It was a surprise inspection and he was found to be in possession of the money.According to the authorities, ₹2,040 was recovered from him. The court failed to understand how a charge could have been framed to the effect that he received ₹6,725 as illegal gratification. The charge and the foundational facts did not go together, the court said.The court said the very framing of the charge was fatally defective. The charge read that he had received illegal gratification from the salesmen. Admittedly, it was not a case of receipt. It was a case of possession. He had given a reasonable explanation for possession of ₹2,040. The money found with the salesmen could not be termed a bribe money when it had not passed hands. The finding of guilt rested on no evidence.The court allowed the appeal and directed that the appellants (legal heirs) would be paid with all the consequential benefits. Published - August 26, 2026 09:45 pm IST