logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2025 MHC 8207 print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras
Case No : W.P.No. 46156 of 2025 & W.M.P.No. 51480 & 51483 of 2025
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI
Parties : P. Selvakumar Versus The Principal Secretary to Government Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Chennai & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: T. Ranganathan, S.N. Ravichandran, Advocates. For the Respondents: R1 & R2, M. Suresh Kumar, Additional Advocate General Assisted by C. Selvaraj, Additional Government Pleader, R3, Dakshayani Reddy, Senior Counsel, P.S. Prabhu, Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 17-12-2025
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned 2nd charge memo issued by the 2nd Respondents to consider his name for promotion as Executive Engineer, till charge sheeted in the Criminal case, within a reasonable period as may be fixed by this Hon’ble Court.)

1. Aggrieved by the impugned charge memo dated 27.11.2024 issued by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner is before this Court.

2. Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this Writ Petition are follows:-

               a) The petitioner, who has been working as Assistant Executive Engineer was placed under suspension based on the report submitted by the Commissioner, Ranipet Municipality. The said suspension was subsequently revoked by the Director of Municipal Administration by order dated 06.02.2023. Thereafter, a show cause notice under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Municipal Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1970 was issued on 17.12.2024. Though the petitioner had submitted his reply to the show cause notice, instead of issuing charge memo under Rule 17(a) of the Act, the respondents issued an order of punishment imposing a penalty of “Stoppage of increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect”.

               b) Subsequently, on 02.02.2021, on the basis on the enquiry conducted by the DVAC Inspector, DE notice came to be issued alleging that the petitioner is in possession of unaccountable wealth in the form of money, gold and silver and immovable assets. In connection with this, an FIR was registered against the Petitioner however, the petitioner obtained Anticipatory Bail in Crl.O.P.No.24896 and 25017 of 202 dated 23.12.2021. Whileso, the second impugned charge memo has come to be issued. Aggrieved by which, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned charge memo is vague and bald as it neither contains the particulars of the alleged misconduct said to have been committed by the petitioner nor encloses the Annexure IV, namely, the list of witnesses. He further submitted that the issuance of 2nd charge memo on the same set of facts which formed the basis for registration of FIR is impermissible and thus the impugned charge memo suffers from error and is contrary to the provisions of Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1955.

4. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents submitted that, pursuant to the direction of this Court, the 2nd respondent appeared before this Court and agreed to withdraw the alleged defective charge memo and sought liberty to issue fresh charge memo strictly in terms of Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1955.

5. In view of the above, there shall be a direction to the respondents to withdraw the present impugned charge memo dated 27.11.2024 and thereafter, issue a fresh charge memo under relevant rules and proceed with the enquiry in the manner known to law. The petitioner is directed to co-operate with the enquiry to be conducted by the respondents.

6. The Writ Petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid direction. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal