Writ petition filed under Article 226 seeking directions to government respondents to conclude disciplinary proceedings against 94 officials within a prescribed time limit. The High Court dismissed the petition as it was not maintainable since the petitioner, a third party, cannot insist on the initiation of disciplinary action.
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.(MD)No.9026 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED :12.04.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.P.(MD)No.9026 of 2024
P.Ganesan
.. Petitioner
Vs.
1/8
W.P.(MD)No.9026 of 2024
.. Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 5 to conclude the Disciplinary Proceedings initiated against the erring officials as indicated by the writ petitioner within the time limit prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.81, Human Resources
Management (N) Department dated 04.08.2022.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Saravanakumar
For Respondents : Mr.S.Shanmnugavel Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of
Mandamus for issuance of a direction to the respondents 1 to 5 to
conclude the Disciplinary Proceedings initiated against the erring
officials as indicated by the writ petitioner within the time limit
prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.81, Human Resources Management (N)
2/8
W.P.(MD)No.9026 of 2024
Department dated 04.08.2022.
2. By consent of both the parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
3. Heard Mr.M.Saravanakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.Shanmnugavel, learned Additional
Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
4. The petitioner seems to have brought some alleged irregularities committed by some 94 persons. He has also filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.16731 of 2020 for issuance of writ of mandamus to direct the Government respondents to conduct enquiry and conclude the same. The above writ petition has been dismissed with the following observation.:
“The petitioner seeks conclusion of the petition mentioned enquiry proceedings.
2. I went through the contents of the complaint sent by the petitioner. The petitioner has arrayed as many as 94
3/8
W.P.(MD)No.9026 of 2024
persons as the respondents in the complaint. They vary from Village Administrative Officers to District Collectors.
3. I do not want to make any comment on the petitioner. I would only state that it is for the competent authority to take action against the subordinate employees. It is not for this Court to issue any positive mandamus. A third party cannot insist or demand that disciplinary action must be taken against a particular employee or set of employees.
4. The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs."
5. Despite the writ petition has been dismissed, the 4th
respondent District Collector has sent a communication dated 05.05.2023 to the 5th respondent as though a direction has been
given in the above writ petition in W.P(MD)No.16731 of 2020 to initiate disciplinary proceedings after making due enquiries on the allegations made by the petitioner against 94 persons. The petitioner appears to have been filing an application through RTI Act with regard to some complaints made by him. In some complaints, the complaint dated 10.04.2017, the petitioner has made various allegations as a counter for some earlier cases registered against him. The contents of the complaint would show that the petitioner
4/8
W.P.(MD)No.9026 of 2024
tries to exercise the Government machinery to settle his personal score. Even though the earlier writ petition filed by him seeking direction to initiate disciplinary action against 94 persons has been dismissed, the petitioner has filed this present petition to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a prescribed time limit.
6. First of all, there is no material to show that any disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against any specific individuals. Even if it is assumed that certain disciplinary action have been initiated against any of the individuals, the petitioner who is a third party cannot seek a direction against the Government respondents to conclude those enquiries as prayed by him.
7 . It is for the authorities concerned to initiate action or not to
initiate action or to dispose the proceedings as how they are duty bound to do. The petitioner being a third party cannot abuse the process of this Court to file such writ petition and hence, this writ petition is not maintainable.
5/8
W.P.(MD)No.9026 of 2024
8. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed . No Costs.
12.04.2024
NCC :yes/no Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no PJL
To
6/8
W.P.(MD)No.9026 of 2024
Ezhilagam, Chepakkam, Chennai-600 005.
Tenkasi Post &District.
7/8
W.P.(MD)No.9026 of 2024
R.N.MANJULA, J.
PJL
W.P.(MD)No.9026 of 2024
12.04.2024
8/8
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a third party can be issued a writ of mandamus to direct the government to conclude disciplinary proceedings against erring officials.
Whether this writ petition is maintainable given the petitioner filed a similar petition earlier which was dismissed.
Whether the petitioner can abuse the process of the court by filing a petition to conclude disciplinary proceedings as a third party.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
P. Ganesan
The State of Tamil Nadu
The Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue and Disaster Management Department
The Additional Chief Secretary, Commissioner of Revenue Administration
The District Collector, Tenkasi
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenkasi
R.N. Manjula
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
