Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Shanmugam .a Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

Home
Madras HC
2024
Shanmugam .a Vs The State of Tamil NaduShanmugam .a v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Dismissed

Shanmugam .a v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC2 Dec 2024WP(MD)/6061/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a third party seeking a mandamus to initiate disciplinary proceedings against school officials for allegedly collecting money illegally from students. The court held that a third party with no personal injury lacks locus standi to interfere in service disputes between an employee and the employer.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The writ petition was dismissed with no costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether a third party without personal injury can invoke Article 226 to direct disciplinary proceedings against a government employee. +2 more

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Disciplinary proceedings are essentially between the employer and employee. A third party, even a social worker or school parent, has no locus standi to invoke Article 226 to direct the authorities to initiate departmental action, as it amounts to an abuse of the court's process. The decision to initiate disciplinary action lies solely within the scope and authority of the concerned disciplinary authority.

A compact analysis

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.

A

W.P(MD)No.6061 of 2022

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 02.12.2024

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

W.P(MD)No.6061 of 2022

Shanmugam .A ... Petitioner

Vs

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

2.The Commissioner of School Education, O/o.The Commissioner of School Education, DPI Campus, Chennai- 600 006.

3.The Director of School Education, O/o.The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, Chennai-600 006.

4.The Chief Education Officer, O/o.The Chief Education Officer, Tiruchirappalli District.

5.The District Education Officer, O/o. The District Education Officer, Lalgudi Education District, Tiruchirappalli District.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

1/16

W.P(MD)No.6061 of 2022

6.Gnanajothi, Headmistress,

D.N.Government Higher Secondary School, Perumalpalayam, Thuraiyur Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District.

7.Kavitha, Headmistress (I/c)/ PG Assistant Biology, D.N.Government Higher Secondary School, Perumalpalayam, Thuraiyur Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District.

8.Shanmugam K, S/o. Kuthan, No.B-52, New Housing Board, Trichy Road, Thuraiyur, Tiruchirappalli District. ...Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the Respondent No.6 to 8 for collecting money illegally from the student of D.N.Government Higher Secondary School, Perumalpalayam, Trichy by considering the representation dated 27.12.2021, within the time period stipulated by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.Karthick For R1 to R5 : Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh Additional Government Pleader

2/16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P(MD)No.6061 of 2022

O R D E R

The petitioner, a P.G.Assistant working in Government Higher Secondary School, Senappanallur, Lalgudi, Trichy has filed this writ petition for a Mandamus, to direct the respondents to initiate disciplinary proceedings as against the Respondents 6 to 8, for collecting money illegally from the students of D.N.Government Higher Secondary School, Perumalpalayam, Trichy, by considering

his representation, dated 27.12.2021.

2 .In identical circumstances, this Court had dealt with the issue as to the rights of the third parties to seek for departmental action against a Government employee, wherein, it has been held that the decision to initiate such departmental proceedings lies within the scope and authority of the concerned disciplinary authority and it is not for the third parties to seek to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the purpose of directing the authorities to initiate such action. Relying upon a few of such

3/16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P(MD)No.6061 of 2022

decisions, a learned Single Judge of this Court, in the case of Sudalaikannu Vs. The Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Secretariat, Chennai and others, passed in W.P.(MD).No.8871 of 2018, dated 26.04.2018 , has upheld this ratio in the following manner:

'' 8. The learned senior counsel, in response would submit that, the law is well settled in this regard as a third party cannot stand in the way in between the employee and the employer in matters of service disputes, especially in the context of disciplinary proceedings.

9. In this regard, the learned senior counsel would rely upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court made in the case Rajnit Prasad vs., Union of India and others reported in (2000) 9 SCC 313 . The learned senior counsel has relied upon paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 and the same which reads as under:

“8. It is, no doubt, true that the scope of "locus standi" has been widened by this Court through its various decisions and, that too, in the field of Public Interest Litigation where it has

4/16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P(MD)No.6061 of 2022

been said that Public Interest Litigation can be initiated not only by filing petitions in the High Court or in this Court in a regular manner but also by means of letters and telegrams addressed to the Court. (See : People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India , Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India , State of Himachal Pradesh v. A Parent of a Student of Medical College, Shimla and Bangalore Medical . Trust v. B.S. Muddappa

9. But a mere busy-body who has no interest cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Court. In respect of departmental proceedings which are initiated or sought to be initiated by the Government against its employees, a person who is not even remotely connected with those proceedings cannot challenge any aspect of the departmental proceedings or action by filing a Writ Petition in the High Court or in this Court. Disciplinary action against an employee is taken by the Government for various reasons principally for "misconduct" on the part of the employee. This action is taken after a "domestic" enquiry in which the employee is provided an

5/16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P(MD)No.6061 of 2022

opportunity of hearing as required by the constitutional mandate. It is essentially a matter between the employer and the employee, and a stranger, much less a practising advocate, cannot be said to have any interest in those proceedings. Public interest of general importance is not involved in disciplinary proceedings. In fact, if such petitions are entertained at the instance of persons who are not connected with those proceedings, it would amount to an abuse of the process of Court.

10. In view of the above, it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the Order of the High Court by which the departmental charge-sheet issued to Dr. U.N. Biswas was quashed. The permission to file the special leave petition is, therefore, refused.”

10. The learned senior counsel would also rely upon the decision of the learned Judge of this Court in the matter of K.Padma vs., Vigilance Cell, Madras and Others reported in (2007) 3 MLJ 639 , where the learned senior counsel relied upon the following passages:

“ The grievance of the petitioner in this writ

6/16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P(MD)No.6061 of 2022

petition is that the District Munsif, Namakkal, while discharging his judicial function, committed irregularities, which made the petitioner to make a complaint to the first respondent, the Vigilance Cell, High Court, Madras. The Vigilance Cell sent recommendations on the same to the Principal District Judge, Namakkal to enquire into the complaint. Also, the proceeding before the Principal District Judge, Namakkal, dated 20.12.2004 which is the Enquiry Report, is filed in the typed set of papers.

2. The entire exercise by the petitioner is highly misconceived. When a complaint against a Judicial Officer is made, it can be enquired into under the Orders of the Hon'ble Chief Justice. Any further proceedings on which action to be taken will be decided by him either through the Committees appointed by him or by the Full Court. The petitioner being the complainant has no further role to play in this matter. The Supreme Court, vide decision Rajnit Prasad v. Union of India AIR 2000 SC 3469 : 2000 (9) SCC 313 held that once a complaint is given against a judicial

7/16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P(MD)No.6061 of 2022

officer his role ends there. The relevant passage found in paragraphs 9 and 10 are as follows:

In respect of departmental proceedings which are initiated or sought to be initiated by the Government against its employees, a person who is not even remotely connected with those proceedings cannot challenge any aspect of the departmental proceedings or action by filing a writ petition in the High Court or in this Court. Disciplinary action against an employee is taken by the Government for various reasons principally for misconduct on the part of the employee. This action is taken after a domestic inquiry in which the employee is provided an opportunity of hearing as required by the constitutional mandate. It is essentially a matter between the employer and the employee, and a stranger, much less a practising advocate, cannot be said to have any interest in those proceedings. Public interest of general importance is not involved in disciplinary proceedings. In fact, if such petitions are entertained at the instance of persons who are not connected with those proceedings, it would amount to an abuse of the

8/16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P(MD)No.6061 of 2022

process of Court.

10. In view of the above, it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the order of the High Court by which the departmental charge-sheet issued to Dr. U.N. Biswas was quashed. The permission to file the special leave petition is, therefore, refused.

3. In the light of the above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is misconceived and clearly not maintainable. Hence the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2087 are closed.”

11. The learned senior counsel also relied upon the recent decision of the learned Judge made in V.Vijayalakshmi vs., State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary and others in W.P.(MD) No.939 of 2018 dated 17.01.2018, where the learned Judge has taken the decision that, the disciplinary action against the officials concerned lies entirely with the employer and it is not for the writ petitioner, who is a private person to ask for a Writ of Mandamus in this regard. The relevant portion of the

9/16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P(MD)No.6061 of 2022

judgment reads as under:-

“4. The specific complaint of the writ petitioner is that for a period of suspension, that is, from 04.08.2015 to 10.08.2017, even though her salary has been disbursed by the Government, it was not credited to her account and that the same was misappropriated. The writ petitioner, therefore lodged a representation in this regard, for taking appropriate action against the persons who allegedly misappropriated the salary payable to her. Since no action was taken, the present writ petition has been filed for directing the respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate criminal and disciplinary action against the erring officials.

5.This Court is of the view that the decision to take disciplinary action against the officials concerned, lies entirely with the employer and it is not for the writ petitioner to ask for issuance of Writ of Mandamus in this regard. The writ petitioner has no locus standi in the matter.”

10/16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P(MD)No.6061 of 2022

.......14. As it is rightly pointed out by the learned Amicus, the law in this regard is well settled, as a third party, not connected with any service dispute cannot maintain the Writ Petition, invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, on the service side seeking a Writ of Mandamus to take action against any employee or officials.

15. The theory of personal injury can very well be pressed into the service in this case.

16. Admittedly, the petitioner is a third party and though he has claimed to be the social worker, he cannot claim any personal injury of the case of the alleged delayed action of disciplinary proceedings against the official respondent against the private respondent.

17. Once the third party cease to be the person, without any personal injury, he cannot maintain the Writ Petiiton as an adversary Writ Petition.

18. If the petitioner files any adversary writ petition on the service side, because he is a third party, the next question would be naturally raised is that, whether he can file such petitions by way of Public Interest

11/16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P(MD)No.6061 of 2022

Litigations(PIL).

19. In this regard, it is also brought to the notice of this Court that, the very same petitioner already approached this Court by filing a PIL, where the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD).No.6734 of 2007 in Sudalaikannu Vs., the Secretary, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department and others dated 23.12.2008 made the following observations which can usefully be pressed into service herein.

“ It is seen that the petitioner belongs to a particular political party and he also functioned as a Councilor of the Municipal Corporation. Further, the petition has been filed on frivolous reasons after knowing fully well that action is being taken against respondents-4 to 7. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court that vexatious applications in the guise of public interest litigations should not be entertained. Since the present petition is one of such kind, we hold that the petitioner has no locus standi to file it and the same is liable to be dismissed.”

12/16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P(MD)No.6061 of 2022

3.The facts involved in the aforesaid decision would be

applicable to the facts of the present case also. More over, by following the aforesaid ratio, this Court has already decided the similar issue in WP(MD) No.17262 of 2022, dated 03.08.2022. Though the petitioner claims that while he was serving in D.N.Government Higher Secondary School, Perumalpalayam, he found that the respondents 6 &7 collected money from the students of the above School illegally, in connivance with the eighth respondent, who was the then District Educational officer, the petitioner may not have any legal right to seek for departmental action as against the respondents 6 to 8 herein and at the most, he can address the issue before the concerned authority. However, seeking for a direction from this Court to initiate such departmental proceedings against the respondents 6 to 8 is impermissible, in view of the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions. As such, this Court

do not find any merits in the prayer sought for in the present Writ Petition.

13/16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P(MD)No.6061 of 2022

4.Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

02.12.2024

NCC:Yes/No Index:Yes vrn

14/16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P(MD)No.6061 of 2022

To

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

2.The Commissioner of School Education, O/o.The Commissioner of School Education, DPI Campus, Chennai- 600 006.

3.The Director of School Education, O/o.The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, Chennai-600 006.

4.The Chief Education Officer, O/o.The Chief Education Officer, Tiruchirappalli District.

5.The District Education Officer, O/o. The District Education Officer, Lalgudi Education District, Tiruchirappalli District.

15/16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P(MD)No.6061 of 2022

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

vrn

Order made in W.P(MD)No.6061 of 2022

02.12.2024

16/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Issues for consideration

3 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether a third party without personal injury can invoke Article 226 to direct disciplinary proceedings against a government employee.
2.
Whether a third party can maintain a writ petition seeking departmental action against officials for alleged misuse of funds.
3.
Whether the decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings lies within the sole authority of the employer and is not open to third party intervention.

Cases cited

Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority

AI extract

Sudalaikannu Vs. The Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Secretariat, Chennai and othersFollowed¶33
Sudalaikannu Vs. The Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Secretariat, Chennai and others, W.P.(MD).No.8871
Rajnit Prasad vs., Union of India and othersFollowed¶35
Rajnit Prasad vs., Union of India and others, (2000) 9 SCC 313 · Who else cites this
K.Padma vs., Vigilance Cell, Madras and OthersFollowed¶47
K.Padma vs., Vigilance Cell, Madras and Others, (2007) 3 MLJ 639
V.Vijayalakshmi vs., State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary and othersFollowed¶65
V.Vijayalakshmi vs., State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary and others, W.P.(MD) No.939 of 2018 dated 17.01.2018
Sudalaikannu Vs., the Secretary, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department and othersFollowed¶84
Sudalaikannu Vs., the Secretary, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department and others, W.P.(MD).No.6734 of 2007 dated 23.12.2008
WP(MD) No.17262 of 2022Followed¶89
WP(MD) No.17262 of 2022, dated 03.08.2022

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

ConstitutionArticle 226

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Shanmugam .A
respondent
State of Tamil Nadu
respondent
Principal Secretary, Department of School Education
respondent
Commissioner of School Education
respondent
Director of School Education
respondent
Chief Education Officer

Coram

AI extract

B.Pugalendhi

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 2 Dec 2024 · December
Registered: 31 Mar 2022
Case no.: WP(MD)/6061/2022
CNR: HCMD010290672022
Topic: Service and Employment
Bench: B.pugalendhi
Disposal: DISMISSED

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from B.pugalendhi

N.Ganesan Vs L.Madhubalan
29 Nov 2024
P.Vasanthamary, Vs the Agriculture Production
29 Nov 2024
Rathina Sekara Jaisingh Vs The Managing Director
29 Nov 2024
Dr.S.Subramani Vs the Director of Public
2 Dec 2024
Arunkumar.B Vs Tamil Nadu State Commission for Protection Child Rights
2 Dec 2024
Karuppiah.K Vs the Chief Educational Officer
2 Dec 2024

Cite this judgement

Shanmugam .a v. The State of Tamil Nadu, WP(MD)/6061/2022 (MAD), decided on 2 December 2024.

The Madras High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Cases cited6

Sudalaikannu Vs. The Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Secretariat, Chennai and othersFollowed¶33
Rajnit Prasad vs., Union of India and othersFollowed¶35
K.Padma vs., Vigilance Cell, Madras and OthersFollowed¶47

View all cases cited

Statutes1

ConstitutionArticle 226

View all statutes

Bench / Coram

B.Pugalendhi

Parties & counsel