(Prayer: Writ Miscellaneous Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to extent the time for further 12 months from 27.10.2025 for complying the order passed by this Court in WP(MD) No.17515 of 2025, dated 27.06.2025.
Writ Miscellaneous Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to grant further period of six months to the petitioners to comply with the order of this Court in WP(MD) No. 18818 of 2025, dated 11.07.2025.
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to reserve one post for the post of Assistant Executive Engineer 2025-2026 based on the Panel List published Roc.No.42801/2025/EE 1.2 Dated 26.06.2025 and pass such other or further orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case within a stipulated time as fixed by this Court.
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to expedite and complete the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner in TDP case No.11/2022 at the pending 2nd respondent office and pass appropriate orders within stipulated time period as may be fixed by this Court.
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the Impugned Proceedings of the 5th Respondent bearing Na.Ka.No. 406/2014/A1 Dated 02.01.2015 which is in appropriate, irrelvant and apparent on the face of the record and passed in a mechanical manner without following the guidelines of Indira Awaas Yojana Scheme and quash the same as illegal, consequently directing the respondents to award the compensation to the petitioner due to the prolonged pendency of the enquiry proceedings more than 10 years it indeed affects seniority as well as promotion and it would put irreparable loss and untold hardship for more than 10 years.
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Writ of mandamus to direct the 1st respondent to conclude the disciplinary proceedings in Roc.No.B1/123/2024 (TDP No.1 of 2024), dated 28.02.2024 within stipulated time fixed by this court.
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings in Roc.A2/257/2024 (TDP No.07/2024) dated 20.12.2024 and quash the same insofar as the petitioners are concerned as illegal.)
Common Order
1. All these petitions are pertaining to the proceedings pending before various Tribunals for Disciplinary Proceedings and therefore, all these petitions are tagged together and disposed of by this common order.
2. The petitioner in WP(MD)No.35029 of 2025 is an Assistant Engineer in the Panchayat Union and she is facing disciplinary proceedings before the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings (in short Tribunal), Tiruchirappalli. This disciplinary proceedings was initiated as against her that she had misappropriated the government funds under Indira Awaas Yojana Scheme to the tune of Rs.6,75,623/- during the financial year 2008-2009 and 2010-2011 without constructing the houses and created forged and fabricated documents, as if the buildings have been constructed. The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption conducted an enquiry and recommended for initiation of disciplinary proceedings as against her and therefore, the government vide letter dated MS.No.8820/E2/2014-1, Rural Development and Panchayat Department dated 06.11.2014 referred her case for enquiry before the Tribunal, Tiruchirappalli. This petitioner Akila with a grievance that the said enquiry before the Tribunal has not been concluded, filed a writ petition before this court in WP(MD)No.18818 of 2025 for a mandamus directing the Commissioner of the Tribunal to conclude the enquiry proceedings in Na.Ka.No.406/2014/A1, dated 02.01.2015 within a stipulated time. This court considering the period of delay in concluding the enquiry, by order dated 11.07.2025 directed the Tribunal to conclude the enquiry pending against the delinquent officer Akila on merits, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
3. The enquiry has not been concluded as directed by this court and therefore, the State through its Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department has field a petition in WMP(MD)No.25945 of 2025 in WP(MD)No.18818 of 2025 seeking further period of six months to conclude the disciplinary proceedings pending as against the the delinquent officer Akila. This delinquent officer Akila has filed another writ petition that the department is inclined to issue panel for the post of Assistant Executive Engineer and in view of the proceedings pending before the Tribunal her promotional opportunity has been affected and therefore sought a writ of mandamus directing the Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department to keep one post reserved in the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer from the panel 2025-206 issued on 26.06.2025.
4. The Officer has filed another writ petition in WP(MD)No.36599 of 2025 challenging the charge memo framed as against her before the Tribunal in Na.Ka.No.406/2014/A-1, dated 02.01.2015 that this enquiry is pending for more than 10 years and thereby her seniority and promotions are affected and that the delay in concluding the proceedings is wilful and dereliction of duty and thereby her right of promotion has been affected and thereby she needs to be compensated for this prolonged pendency of the enquiry proceedings for more than 10 years.
5. Pending these petitions, the Commissioner of Tribunal, Tiruchirappalli along with the State has filed a petition in WMP(MD)No.27200 of 2025 seeking extension of time for further 12 months from 27.10.2025 to comply with the orders of this court passed in WP(MD)No.17515 of 2025, dated 27.06.2025. This writ petition was filed by one Rathinam, who is facing disciplinary proceedings before the Tribunal, Tiruchirappalli seeking early disposal of the proceedings. This court by its order dated 27.06.2025 has disposed the writ petition filed by the delinquent officer Rathinam with a direction to the Tribunal to conclude the enquiry within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The disciplinary proceedings was recommended by the Government as against this petitioner Rathinam and one Senthilvel, BDO, DRDA of Karur district on 19.07.2023. The tribunal framed charges as against the delinquent officers on 09.08.2024. The proceedings were not concluded and therefore, the accused officer in TDP.No.9B of 2023 has approached this court in WP(MD)No.17515 of 2025.
6. Yet another writ petition has been filed by one Muruganandham, Additional Transport Commissioner, who is facing the disciplinary proceedings for having acquired assets to the tune of Rs.78,75,935/-, was placed under suspension just prior to the date of superannuation vide GO.2DNo.153, dated 30.05.2019 and was not permitted to retire from service. His case was also referred to the Tribunal, Tiruchirappalli and same is pending in TDP.No.11 of 2022. He has filed this writ petition in WP(MD)No.35450 of 2025 seeking a writ of mandamus to the Commissioner, Tribunal, to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a stipulated time.
7. One Ganga Parameshwari, Executive Engineer of Public Works Department, who is facing disciplinary proceedings before the Commissioner, Tribunal, Nagercoil of Kanaykumari District has filed a similar writ petition in WP(MD)No.280 of 2026 seeking a similar direction to conclude the disciplinary proceedings in ROC.No.B1/123-2024 (TDP.NO.1/2024, dated 20.02.2025) within a stipulated time. This delinquent officer is facing charges based on the report of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption that she was in possession of Rs.7,500/- in her handbag and she was not having any satisfactory reasons for possession of the amount. The Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department conducted a raid in the office of the PWD, Building Division, Thoothukudi dated 01.11.2023, at that time three officials and two private persons were in possession of Rs.3,30,000/- unaccounted money and therefore, an enquiry was contemplated and disciplinary proceedings were recommended as against the petitioner before the Tribunal.
8. The petitioners in WP(MD)No.4802 of 2026, a Head Master and a Junior Assistant of a Government School in Virudhunagar district are also facing disciplinary proceedings before the Tribunal, Tiruchirappalli, in ROC.No.A2/257/2024, (TDP No.7 of 20224, dated 20.12.2024), based on the report of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department that on a surprise inspection conducted by them on 07.11.2023, they recovered a sum of Rs.13,000/- from the Head Master and the Junior Assistant and the petitioners are not having any valid reasons and therefore, disciplinary proceedings were recommended as against them before the Tribunal by the Vigilance Department. The petitioners have filed this writ petition to quash the charge memo that they attended more than 8 hearings and there is no progress in the disciplinary proceedings and the proceedings is pending beyond the prescribed limit by the Government of Tamil Nadu in GO.Ms.No.81, Human Resources Management Department, dated 04.08.2022.
9. All the writ petitions filed by delinquent officers are related to the proceedings, which are pending before the Tribunals and therefore, these writ petitions are also tagged along with the petitions filed by the Tribunals.
10. The common grievance of the petitioners, who are facing disciplinary proceeding before the Tribunals is that there is a delay in concluding the proceedings before the Tribunal, which is in violation of the government order in GOMs.No.81 Human Resources Management (N) Department, dated 04.08.2022.
11. The Tribunals for Disciplinary Proceedings were established by the Government of Tamil Nadu under Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceeding Tribunal) Rules, 1955. The Tribunals have dual functions, one as enquiry authority under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal), Rules, 1955 and the other as enquiry authority under Rule 17(b)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification control and Appeal) Rules 1955, as per Rule 3(b)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. The Types of cases referred to the Tribunals by the Government as per Rule Nos. 4 and 5 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955 are as follows:
“i. Cases relating to the Officers of the State Services in respect of matters involving corruption on the part of the such officers;
ii. All appeals or petitions to the Government against orders passed on the charges of corruption;
iii. The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption or any other branch of the Police or other departmentally authority concerned in respect of matters involving corruption shall forward their report to the government and the government in turn shall after consultation with the head of the department decide whether the cases shall be tried in the court of law or by the tribunal or by the departmentally authority and refers the matters to the tribunal.
12. The procedures for framing charges before the Tribunals are contemplated under Rule 8 and 9 are as under:
“As soon as the records relating to allegations of corruption or of corruption combined with other charges against a Government servant are received, the Tribunal shall frame appropriate charges, communicate them to the person charged together with list of witnesses likely to be examined in respect of each of the charges, copies of the complaints made by the complainants, copies of statements taken from the witnesses which form the basis on which the Tribunal has framed the charge or charges against him and with information as to the date and place of enquiry. At the enquiry, oral and documentary evidence shall be first adduced by the prosecution and person charged shall be entitled to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses and to explain any documents produced by the prosecution. The person charged shall thereafter, within the time allowed by the Tribunal, file a written statement of his defence along with a list of witnesses whom he wishes to examine, stating the points on which he proposes to examine each of them, provided that he need not so specify the points for examination in his own case, when he wishes to examine himself as well. The oral and documentary evidence on his side shall then be adduced. After the enquiry is completed, the Tribunal shall hear the Prosecutor for Disciplinary Proceedings and the person charged or permit them to file the written briefs of their respective cases, if they so desire. A copy of the written brief, if submitted by the Prosecutor for Disciplinary Proceedings, shall be served on the person charged, before he is required to submit his reply written brief. The Tribunal shall, as far as possible, observe the basic rules of evidence relating to the examination of witnesses and the marking of documents.
(ii) For sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing, the Tribunal shall have power to refuse to call a witness on either side, or to summon, and examine any further witnesses, or to call for, and exhibit any further documents. The proceedings of the Tribunal shall contain a sufficient record of the evidence.
9.After the enquiry has been completed, the Tribunal shall send its findings to the Government to the effect whether the charges against the person charged are proved or not. Where the charges proved the penalty to be imposed on the person charged shall be decided by the Government or the Head of the Department, as the case may be.”
13. These Tribunals function under the administrative control of the Vigilance Commissioner and he shall be responsible for reviewing and monitoring the enquiries pending before the Tribunals. Therefore, the cases of corruption and the cases of corruption combined with other charges are referred to the Tribunals and these tribunals are monitored by the Vigilance Commissioner.
14. The time limit for processing the disciplinary proceedings is prescribed by the government vide GO.Ms.No.81, Human Resources (N) Management Department dated 04.08.2022 as under:
“12.The Government also reiterate the time limit prescribed in the Government letter first read above for processing the disciplinary proceedings so as to ensure that there is no unwarranted delay in finalizing them, as follows:-
| (i) | To complete the investigation by Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption and to send a report to Government through Vigilance Commission. | One year |
| (ii) | To complete the enquiry by the Tribunal and to send its findings to the Department of Secretariat | One year |
| (iii) | To pass final orders by the Government/Heads of Department on receipt of the report of the Tribunal | Four months |
| (i) | For calling for explanation under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules or framing charges under Rule 17(b) of the said rules For calling for explanation under Rule 3(a) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 or framing of charges under Rule 3(b) of the said Rules after the lapse comes to the notice. (The choice of the rule under which the disciplinary proceedings should be initiated is very important and the disciplinary authorities are expected to take a decision by considering the nature of lapses committed) | 15 days |
| (ii) | For the delinquent officer to peruse the records and to submit his written explanation. | 30 days |
| (iii) | For appointment of enquiry officer wherever necessary after the receipt of the explanation. | 7 days |
| (iv) | For the enquiry officer to complete enquiry and submit the enquiry report | 30 days |
| (v) | For the Disciplinary Authority to take a decision, after the receipt of the inquiry officer's Report | 10 days |
| (vi) | For obtaining the further representation of the delinquent officer on the report of the inquiry officer. | 15 days |
| (vii) | For obtaining the views of Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, whenever it is consulted | 30 days |
| (viii) | For issue of final orders on the departmental disciplinary proceeding:- (a) By Disciplinary Authority other than Government (b) By Department of Scretariat which have to consult other Departments and obtain orders in circulation. | 7 days 30 days |
16. The time limit for completion of tribunal enquiry has been laid down by the Government way-back in the year 1987 vide Government Letter (Ms)No.1118, Personal and Administrative Reforms (Per.N) Department, dated 22.12.1987 as under:
“100.Time Limit for completion of Tribunal Enquiry
In cases arising out of enquiries/investigation by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, the Government have prescribed the following time – limit for completion of the enquiry by the Tribunal:-
(I) To complete the enquiry by the Tribunal and to send its findings to the Departments of Secretariat.
(II)To pass final orders by the Government/Heads of Departments on receipt of the report of the Tribunal.”
The same has been reiterated vide GO.Ms.No.81, Human Resources (N) Management Department dated 04.08.2022 as stated above.
17. The delinquent officers, who are facing disciplinary proceedings are placed under suspension and these officers are entitled for subsistence allowance. In view of this inordinate delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings, these delinquent officers may be getting full pay and allowances.
18. Admittedly there is delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings pending before the Tribunals. In the case of petitioner Akila, the proceedings are pending for the past 10 years. Considering this much of delay, this court in the cases of Akila and M.Rathinam, issued directions to conclude the proceedings within a stipulated time. The time limit for concluding the disciplinary proceedings has been prescribed by the Government vide GO.Ms.No.81, dated 04.08.2022. The Government in the said government order has directed all the authorities who deal with the disciplinary matters to follow the guidelines and the time limit prescribed in Paragraph Nos. 11 and 12 strictly, without any deviation. A direction is also issued in the said government order in paragraph No.13 that in case of failure to comply with the above directions, severe action will be pursued as against the officials responsible for the lapses and if any deliberate or arbitrary delay in the enquiry shall be treated as abetment to shield the delinquent officers and severe disciplinary action should be taken against the concerned authority or officials.
19. These Tribunals for Disciplinary Proceedings constituted under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955 are to be headed by the Judicial Officers in the rank of the District Judges or the Commissioner for Disciplinary Proceedings. The Commissioner for Disciplinary Proceedings shall be a Senior Grade IAS Officer. The Tribunals were headed by the Judicial Officers till 1976 and they were replaced by the administrative officers from IAS officers. Now the Tribunals are headed by the the District Revenue Officers.
20. Considering the inordinate delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings before the Tribunal, this court has sought for certain clarifications and the Tribunals are having justification that they are responsible for ten districts and that the prosecutors are not appearing regularly. Considering this reason assigned by the Tribunals, this court by order dated 15.12.2025 suo motu impleaded the Vigilance Commissioner and the Director of Prosecution and the Secretary, Human Resources Management Department, Chennai as party to this proceedings and sought for certain clarifications.
21. In response to the same, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State on instructions furnished the details regarding the number of cases pending before the Tribunals as under:
| Name of the CDP's | Over 1 year | Over 2 years | Over 3 years | Over 4 years | Over 5 years | Total |
| Chennai | 17 | 18 | 10 | Nil | 1 | 46 |
| Coimbatore | 12 | 4 | 6 | 1 | 10 | 33 |
| Madurai | 8 | 8 | 7 | 1 | 7 | 31 |
| Tiruchirappalli | 12 | 12 | 9 | 2 | 8 | 43 |
| Tirunelveli | 2 | 3 | 1 | Nil | Nil | 6 |
| Nagercoil | 1 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 11 |
| Total | 52 | 49 | 34 | 8 | 27 | 170 |
23. The learned Additional Advocate General further submits that all the six Commissioners for Disciplinary Proceedings of the State have already been requested to increase the number of hearing days and to complete the enquiry in respect of the long pending cases expeditiously without further delay. They were also requested to state the reasons for not complying with the time limit prescribed for completion of enquiry in G.O.(Ms)No 81, Human Resources Management (N) Department, dated 4.8.2022. In respect of more than one year cases, they have been advised to complete the inquiry on case to case basis. The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti- Corruption is also instructed to assist the Tribunals and to produce the required documents and the witnesses on the date of inquiry before the Tribunals for Disciplinary Proceedings. However, all the Commissioners for Disciplinary Proceedings will be instructed to give top priority for the cases pending for more one year and to complete the inquiry and to send the final report to Departments of Secretariat in Government expeditiously.
24. The learned Additional Advocate General has also placed a letter of the Vigilance Commissioner, dated 10.02.2026 addressed to Commissioner of the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Chennai, Coimbatore, Madurai, Tiruchirappalli, Tirunelveli and Nagercoil.
25. This court has considered the rival submissions made and perused the materials placed on record.
26. The enquiry as against the petitioner Tmt.Akila is pending for the past 10 years. This court by order dated 11.07.2025 has already issued a direction for concluding the enquiry against her within a stipulated time. Even then the enquiry has not been concluded. On this ground alone the enquiry which is pending against her before the Tribunal cannot be quashed. It appears that there are more number of witnesses in her case. The enquiry was initiated as against her in the year 2015 and therefore, priority shall be given and the enquiry as against petitioner Tmt.Akila has to be concluded within a period of three months.
27. The enquiry as against the petitioner in WP(MD)No.35450 of 2025 has been initiated in the year 2022 and the same is pending beyond the time prescribed in the government orders cited supra. Therefore, the enquiry as against this petitioner also needs to be concluded within a period of three months.
28. It appears that there are 27 enquiries pending for more than five years in the Tribunals, 8 enquiries are pending for more than four years and 34 enquiries are pending for more than three years. Therefore, priority has to be given to the old cases.
29. The Vigilance Commissioner, who is expected to monitor the enquiries before the Tribunals, has to monitor the number of witnesses examined by the Tribunals everyday and has to ensure the witnesses are produced in time and the Public Prosecutors are appearing regularly before the Tribunals. The Tribunals have to follow the time limit prescribed in the government orders.
30. In the case of petitioner in WP(MD)No.280 of 2026, she was charged that she was in possession of Rs.7,500/- in her bag, for which there was no proper explanation.This proceedings was initiated as against her pursuant to the raid conducted in the year 2024 and the same is pending. Similarly in the case of the petitioners in WP(MD)No.4802 of 2026, the petitioners were in possession of Rs.13,000/- unaccounted money and the proceedings as against them is pending from the year 2024. The pendency of the proceedings would certainly affect the promotional opportunity and other benefits. The cases of this nature at least can be concluded within the time stipulated in the government orders.
31. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has expressed its anguish in Ram Singh's case reported in 2000 AIR SC 454, as under:
“8. Corruption in a civilised society is a disease like cancer, which if not detected in time, is sure to maliganise the polity of the country leading to disastrous consequences. It is termed as a plague which is not only contagious but if not controlled spreads like a fire in a jungle. Its virus is compared with HIV leading to AIDS, being incurable. It has also been termed as royal thievery. The socio-political system exposed to such a dreaded communicable disease is likely to crumble under its own weight. Corruption is opposed to democracy and social order, being not only anti-people, but aimed and targeted against them. It affects the economy and destroys the cultural heritage. Unless nipped in the bud at the earliest, it is likely to cause turbulence — shaking of the socioeconomic- political system in an otherwise healthy, wealthy, effective and vibrating society.”
32. The cases related to corruption have to be viewed seriously and have to be dealt with utmost care. The pendency of the cases before these Tribunals for Disciplinary Proceedings needs to be addressed by the Vigilance Commissioner . The Tribunals have to be headed by the Judicial Officers in the rank of District Judge, as provided under Rule 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955 or by the IAS Officers. A separate Vigilance Commissioner is the need of this hour to monitor the vigilance cases effectively.
33. The State Vigilance Commission has been established by the Government of Tamil Nadu in the year 1965 based on the recommendations of Santhanam Committee on prevention of corruption. The State Vigilance Commission is headed by the Vigilance Commissioner, who shall advise the government on the major administrative challenges, prevention of corruption in public services in general and the manner in which an individual cases of corruption that is brought to the light should be dealt with. However, there is no regular / permanent Vigilance Commissioner in the State and a senior officer heading the major and sensitive department is holding the post of Vigilance Commissioner as an additional post. The Government, which aims for corruption free governance, in the opinion of this court, shall have an independent Vigilance Commissioner, wholly concentrating on the Vigilance Commission's functioning.
34. Every government has been declaring that they are against corruption, however, the reality has been otherwise. Corruption is deep-rooted everywhere, which can be eradicated by dedicated and consistent action. That can be achieved only by strengthening the Vigilance Commission and the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department.
35. In fine,
(i)the petitions filed by the Tribunals in WMP(MD)No.27200 of 2025 in WP(MD)No.17515 of 2025 and WMP(MD)No.25945 of 2025 in WP(MD)No.18818 of 2025 are allowed and three months time is granted to conclude the proceedings as against Tmt.Akila and Tr.M.Rathinam, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the writ petitions filed by Tmt.Akila in WP(MD)Nos.35029 and 36599 of 2025 are disposed of with a direction to the Tribunal to conclude the proceedings without any further delay and without seeking any further extension.
(ii) the writ petitions in WP(MD)Nos. 35450 of 2025, 280 and 4802 of 2026 are disposed of with a direction to the Tribunals For Disciplinary Proceedings concerned to conclude the subject proceedings within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.