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.

S.Rajendiran Vs Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

Home
Madras HC
2025
S.Rajendiran Vs Union of IndiaS.Rajendiran v. Union of India

Disposed¶37

S.Rajendiran v. Union of India

Mandamus – disciplinary enquiry against Government servant – third-party complainant lacks standing

Madras HC10 Feb 2025WP/21784/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, W.P.No.21784 of 2022, decided 10.02.2025 by D.Bharatha Chakravarthy, J. Former Chairperson of Child Welfare Committee, Puducherry sought mandamus to compel Government of Puducherry officials to consider his representation dated 22.12.2021 and act on complaint dated 20.05.2022 (No.104/CWC/2022) against a Protection Officer. Court held disciplinary enquiry initiation rests with the employer; a third-party complainant cannot compel disciplinary enquiry by mandamus, and a complainant who has retired has no such right. Petition disposed of, no costs. Keywords: mandamus, disciplinary enquiry, third-party complaint, locus standi, Article 226, Child Welfare Committee, Protection Officer, Puducherry.

What did the court decide?

It is now well settled that initiation of disciplinary enquiry is in the domain of the employer.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, a former Chairperson of the Child Welfare Committee who had lodged a complaint against the fourth respondent (Protection Officer), can by a writ of mandamus compel respondents 2 and 3 to consider his representation dated 22.12.2021 and take disciplinary action against the fourth respondent based on the complaint dated 20.05.2022 (No.104/CWC/2022).

Court's answer

It is now well settled that initiation of disciplinary enquiry is in the domain of the employer.

Ratio / Principle

Merely because a third person sends a complaint, that will not give rise to a right for that person to come by way of a Mandamus to compel the Government to initiate disciplinary enquiry.

Key takeaways

The petitioner cannot come by way of a mandamus seeking disciplinary action; it is for the respondents.ratio¶36
The petitioner does not have any right to compel taking of disciplinary action on the basis of the complaint after he has retired from the service.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Mandamus - disciplinary enquiry against Government servant - third-party complainant lacks standing - petitioner, former Chairperson of the Child Welfare Committee, Puducherry, sought a writ of mandamus (Art. 226) directing respondents 2 & 3 to consider his representation dated 22.12.2021 and to take action against the fourth respondent (Protection Officer) to terminate her as an unbecoming Government servant based on complaint dated 20.05.2022 vide No.104/CWC/2022 - Held: initiation of disciplinary enquiry is in the domain of the employer; a third person's complaint confers no right to compel the Government by mandamus to initiate disciplinary enquiry; the petitioner, having retired from service, has no right to compel disciplinary action on the basis of the complaint - Writ petition disposed of with observations, no costs.

A

W.P.No.21784 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 10.02.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

W.P.No.21784 of 2022

S.Rajendiran

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.Union of India

Rep.by the Chief Secretary to Government Government of Puducherry Chief Secretariat

Gubert Avenue

Puducherry 605 001.

2.The Secretary to Government (Welfare) Government of Puducherry WRJP & 84P, White Town Puducherry 605 001.

3.The Director

Department of Women and Child Development Housing Board Complex (Opp.to LIC), New Saram Puducherry 605 013.

1/6

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

W.P.No.21784 of 2022

4.Tmt.Banumathi Protection Officer Department of Women and Child Development Union Territory of Puducherry Child Protection Society Kamarajarsaalai Opp.to LIC Office, New Saram Puducherry 605 013. ....Respondents

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 2 & 3 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 22.12.2021 and consequently direct the third respondent to take action against the fourth respondent to terminate as an unbecoming Government Servant based on the complaint dated 20.05.2022 vide No.104/CWC/2022 sent by the Chairperson, the Child Welfare Committee, Puducherry.

For Petitioner : Ms.R.Kalaiyarasi For Respondents : Mr.R.Sreedhar for R1 to R3 Additional Government Pleader Mr.Babu Rangasamy for R4

ORDER

2/6

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

W.P.No.21784 of 2022

This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 2 and 3 to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 22.12.2021 and consequently, direct the respondents to take action against the fourth respondent to terminate as an unbecoming Government Servant on the complaint dated 20.05.2022, vide No.104/CWC/2022, sent by the Chairperson, Child Welfare Committee, Puducherry.

2. When the petitioner was working as a Chairperson of the Child Welfare Committee, he had sent a complaint as against the fourth respondent. He is no more the Chairperson, but, however, he is pursuing the same by way of the present Writ Petition. On going through the representation of petitioner, the petitioner only alleges certain misconduct on the part of the fourth respondent. It is now well settled that initiation of disciplinary enquiry is in the domain of the employer and merely because a third person sends a complaint, that will not give rise to a right for that person to come by way of a Mandamus to compel the Government to initiate disciplinary enquiry.

3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on

3/6

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

W.P.No.21784 of 2022

behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 submits that as a matter of fact, there has been several complaints received against all the officials, including the petitioner and the Government has dealt with the same. As a matter of fact, the fourth respondent was transferred from the said place and there was allegations against the petitioner also.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the fourth

respondent also had filed a counter affidavit denying the said submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. In view of the fact that the petitioner cannot come by way of a mandamus seeking disciplinary action and it is for the respondents and the petitioner does not have any right to compel for taking disciplinary action on the basis of the complaint after he has retired from the service.

6. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of.

No costs.

4/6

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

W.P.No.21784 of 2022

10.02.2025

Neutral Citation : No dna

To

1.The Chief Secretary to Government Government of Puducherry Chief Secretariat Gubert Avenue Puducherry 605 001.

2.The Secretary to Government (Welfare) Government of Puducherry WRJP & 84P, White Town Puducherry 605 001.

3.The Director Department of Women and Child Development Housing Board Complex (Opp.to LIC), New Saram Puducherry 605 013.

5/6

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

W.P.No.21784 of 2022

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J. dna

W.P.No.21784 of 2022

10.02.2025

6/6

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

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the petitioner, a former Chairperson of the Child Welfare Committee who had lodged a complaint against the fourth respondent (Protection Officer), can by a writ of mandamus compel respondents 2 and 3 to consider his representation dated 22.12.2021 and take disciplinary action against the fourth respondent based on the complaint dated 20.05.2022 (No.104/CWC/2022).¶27
The court held
It is now well settled that initiation of disciplinary enquiry is in the domain of the employer.ratio¶28

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226¶21

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
While working as Chairperson of the Child Welfare Committee, the petitioner sent a complaint against the fourth respondent; he is no longer Chairperson but pursued the matter through this writ petition.¶28
Prior proceeding
Petitioner submitted a representation dated 22.12.2021, consideration of which by respondents 2 & 3 was sought in the mandamus prayer.¶21
Prior proceeding
Complaint dated 20.05.2022, vide No.104/CWC/2022, was sent by the Chairperson, Child Welfare Committee, Puducherry, on which disciplinary action against the fourth respondent was sought.¶27
Prior proceeding
Government stated that several complaints had been received against all officials including the petitioner and were dealt with, and that the fourth respondent was transferred from the said place.¶33
Prior proceeding
Counsel for the fourth respondent filed a counter affidavit denying the petitioner's submissions.¶35

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
S.Rajendiran¶7
Ms.R.Kalaiyarasi
respondent
Union of India (Rep. by the Chief Secretary to Government, Government of Puducherry)¶11
Mr.R.Sreedhar
respondent
The Secretary to Government (Welfare), Government of Puducherry¶14
Mr.R.Sreedhar
respondent
The Director, Department of Women and Child Development¶16
Mr.R.Sreedhar
respondent
Tmt.Banumathi, Protection Officer, Department of Women and Child Development, Union Territory of Puducherry¶20
Mr.Babu Rangasamy

Coram

AI extract

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHYauthor¶5

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 10 Feb 2025 · February
Registered: 17 Aug 2022
Case no.: WP/21784/2022
CNR: HCMA011257392022
Topic: Writ and Judicial Review
Bench: D.bharatha Chakravarthy
Disposal: DISPOSED OF
Case type: W.P.

Similar cases

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

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from D.bharatha Chakravarthy

M/S.Cmk Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu
7 Feb 2025
G.Srivarun Vs the Secretary
7 Feb 2025
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, Vs M/S.R.v.N.Agencies, Rep by Its
7 Feb 2025
A.Sathish Kumar Vs the Government of Tamilnadu
10 Feb 2025
R.Sakthivel Vs the District Collector
10 Feb 2025
M.B.Pramodhini Vs the Thasildhar
10 Feb 2025

Cite this judgement

S.Rajendiran v. Union of India, WP/21784/2022 (MAD), decided on 10 February 2025.

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

Statutes1

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226

View all statutes

Procedural history5

While working as Chairperson of the Child Welfare Committee, the petitioner sent a complaint against the fourth respondent; he is no longer Chairperson but pursued the matter through this writ petition.
Petitioner submitted a representation dated 22.12.2021, consideration of which by respondents 2 & 3 was sought in the mandamus prayer.

View full history

Bench / Coram

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

Parties & counsel