Dismissed¶31

R.N.Dhanasekaran v. the Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Madras HC11 Sept 2025WMP/36458/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, N. Anand Venkatesh J., WMP No. 36458 of 2025 in WP No. 25950 of 2024, decided 11-09-2025. Keywords: modification petition — scope cannot be expanded to review entire writ order; charge memo based on closed FIR — remedy is review application, not modification; departmental inquiry — charge memo (2024) for 2020 incident upheld earlier; directions to furnish documents and complete inquiry (order dated 04.09.2024 in W.P. No. 25950 of 2024); petition closed with liberty to file review.

What did the court decide?

No modification of the order dated 04.09.2024 in W.P. No. 25950 of 2024 granted; the modification petition was closed with liberty to the petitioner to file a review application in accordance with law. ¶31

R.N.Dhanasekaran Vs the Additional Chief Secretary to Government — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether a modification petition can be entertained on the ground that the charge memo, having been issued on the basis of criminal proceedings whose FIR was closed, must fall — where deciding that ground would require review of the entire order passed in the writ petition.

¶28

Court's answer

A ground that requires reviewing the entire order passed in the writ petition cannot be raised in a modification petition; the scope of a modification petition cannot be expanded to that extent. Accordingly, the contention that the charge memo must fall because the FIR was closed cannot be considered in this petition.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

The modification petition is closed, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to file a review application in accordance with law.

¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Scope of modification petition — Madras High Court (N. Anand Venkatesh, J.), WMP No. 36458 of 2025 in WP No. 25950 of 2024 (11-09-2025): The petitioner sought modification of Paragraphs 5 and 7 of the order dated 04.09.2024 in W.P. No. 25950 of 2024, contending that the charge memo, having been issued on the basis of pending criminal proceedings, must fall because the underlying FIR was subsequently closed. Held that such a ground cannot be considered in a modification petition, since it would involve reviewing the entire order passed in the writ petition, and the scope of a modification petition cannot be expanded to that extent. The modification petition was accordingly closed, with liberty to the petitioner to pursue a review application in accordance with law. The underlying order had declined to interfere with a 2024 charge memo relating to a 2020 incident and had directed furnishing of inquiry documents, reply to the show cause notice, and expeditious completion of the departmental inquiry in accordance with law.

¶1

WMP No. 36458 of 2025 in WP No.25950 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 11-09-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

WMP No. 36458 of 2025 IN

¶7

WP No. 25950 of 2024

¶8

R.N.Dhanasekaran

¶9

S/o.Narayanaswamy, Plot No.88, 2nd Right Cross Street, Golden Nagar, Near Loganathan Gas Agency, Katpadi, Vellore- 632 014.

¶10

Petitioner(s)

¶11

¶12

The Additional Chief Secretary To Government

¶13

Highways And Minor Posts (HL1) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-09.

¶14

2.The Director General

¶15

Highways Department, Chennai- 25.

¶16

Respondent(s)

¶17

PRAYER

¶18

To modify the order in Paragraph No.5 and 7 that

¶19

“5.In the considered view of this court, the charge Memo has been issued by a competent authority pointing out certain charges against the petitioner. This charge Memo has been issued in the year 2024 for the incident which took place in the year 2020. It is not as if in every case where there is a delay, the

¶20

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

¶21

WMP No. 36458 of 2025 in WP No.25950 of 2024

¶22

charge memo will be interfered. It will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Considering the facts of this case, this court is not inclined to interfere with the charge memo.

¶23

7.In the light of the above discussion, there shall be a direction to the 1st respondent to furnish the documents sought for and relied upon in the inquiry, to the petitioner within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. on receipt of the same, the petitioner shall give his detailed reply for the show cause notice within a period of four (4) weeks thereafter.The inquiry shall be conducted strictly in accordance with law after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner and it shall be completed as expeditiously as possible”

¶24

passed by this Honble court in W.P. No. 25950 of 2024 dated 04.09.2024.

¶25

For Petitioner(s): Mr.L.G.Sahadevan for Mr.Sathiyaraj E For Respondent(s): Mr.V.Manohar Additional Government Pleader

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The main ground on which this modification petition has been filed is that the charge memo was issued based on the pending criminal proceedings and the First Information Report itself thereafter came to be closed and therefore, the charge memo, which was issued based on this First Information Report, must also fall.

¶28

The above ground raised in this modification petition cannot be considered, since it will involve reviewing the entire order passed in the writ petition. The scope of modification petition cannot be expanded to that extent.

¶29

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

¶30

WMP No. 36458 of 2025 in WP No.25950 of 2024

¶31

Therefore, this modification petition is closed with liberty to the petitioner to file a review application in accordance with law.

11-09-2025

1.The Additional Chief Secretary To Government Highways And Minor Posts (HL1) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-09.