This writ petition challenged the alleged delay in concluding disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. The Court held instead of quashing the Charge Memo, it directed the Respondents to complete the inquiry within three months.
Direction to respondents to complete disciplinary proceedings within three months from the date of this order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No. 2844 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.02.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
W.P.No. 2844 of 2024
S. Narayanan
... Petitioner
Vs. 1.The Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 09. 2.The Commissioner of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai – 15. 3.The District Collector, Villupuram District, Villupuram. ... Respondents
Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pass final order in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner vide charge memo dated 22.03.2022 within a reasonable time as fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr. S. Sivakumar For Respondents : Mrs. R.L. Karthika, Government Advocate
1/4
W.P.No. 2844 of 2024
O R D E R
With the consent of both the parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for final
disposal at the admission stage itself.
2 . In connection with the Charge Memo dated 22.03.2022, framed under Rule 17(B) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, the petitioner was subjected to an inquiry. Though, more than one year has passed since the charges were framed, the inquiry is still pending. In this background, the petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondents to complete the inquiry, within a stipulated time.
3 . In service jurisprudence, when the inquiry is kept pending without conclusion, for an inordinate period, this Court has frowned upon such inaction and had also interfered and quashed the Charge Memos on the ground of pendency for a long period. However, in this case, this Court is of the view that the respondents can be directed to expedite the inqury and pass final orders in the stipulated time.
2/4
W.P.No. 2844 of 2024
4 . In the light of the above discussion, there shall be a direction to the
respondents herein, to complete the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the
petitioner, if not already completed, within a period of three months from today.
08.02.2024
Index :Yes/No
Neutral Citation :Yes/No
AT
To
3/4
W.P.No. 2844 of 2024
BATTU DEVANAND, J.
AT
W.P.No. 2844 of 2024
08.02.2024
4/4
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should direct the respondents to complete the pending disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner within a stipulated time.
Whether inaction in pending inquiry is sufficient to quash the Charge Memo or merely direct expedition.
What period of time should be fixed for the completion of the disciplinary proceedings.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
S. Narayanan
The Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department
The Commissioner of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj
The District Collector, Villupuram District
BATTU DEVANAND
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
