Disposed¶35

K.Thirumurugan v. the Government of Tamilnadu

Madras HC9 Jan 2025WP/564/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition (W.P.No.564 of 2025, decided 09.01.2025) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madras High Court; petitioner Deputy Director sought mandamus for consideration of representations regarding stalled disciplinary inquiry under Charge Memo No.21503/EG2/2021 dated 10.11.2023 following enquiry officer's transfer; direction to respondents to decide representation within four weeks; petition disposed of, no costs; advocates P. Kumaravel for petitioner, Yogesh Kannadasan, Special Government Pleader, for respondents.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within four weeks from receipt of a copy of the order; writ petition disposed of with no order as to costs. ¶35

K.Thirumurugan Vs the Government of Tamilnadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether a Writ of Mandamus should be issued directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representations dated 19.09.2024, 29.10.2024, 22.11.2024 and 20.12.2024, appoint a new enquiry officer, complete the inquiry in Charge Memo No.21503/EG2/2021 dated 10.11.2023 and pass final orders in the disciplinary proceedings within the time limits fixed by the Government vide Government Letter (MS) No.1115/Per/N/87 dated 22.12.1987 and G.O.Ms.No.81 HRM Department dated 04.08.2022.

¶22

Court's answer

Considering the facts and circumstances and the limited relief sought, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

Orders on the petitioner's representation were to be passed on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (V. Bhavani Subbaroyan, J.) disposed of a writ petition by K. Thirumurugan, working as Deputy Director in the Industry Department, who sought a Writ of Mandamus directing the Government of Tamil Nadu (Micro, Small & Medium Enterprise Department) and the Industries Commissioner and Director of Industries & Commerce to consider his representations dated 19.09.2024, 29.10.2024, 22.11.2024 and 20.12.2024, appoint a new enquiry officer and complete the inquiry in Charge Memo No.21503/EG2/2021 dated 10.11.2023 and pass final orders in the disciplinary proceedings within the time limits fixed vide Government Letter (MS) No.1115/Per/N/87 dated 22.12.1987 and G.O.Ms.No.81 HRM Department dated 04.08.2022, the enquiry having made no progress after the enquiry officer's transfer while juniors to the petitioner were promoted. Taken up for final disposal at admission by consent, the Court, without expressing any opinion on merits, directed the respondents to consider the representation and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within four weeks; no order as to costs.

¶1

W.P.No.564 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 09.01.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

¶6

W.P.No.564 of 2025

K. Thirumurugan

...Petitioner

1. The Government of Tamilnadu,

¶11

Represented by Secretary to Govt. Micro, Small & Medium Enterprise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶12

The Industries Commissioner, and Director of Industries & commerce, SIDCO Building, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.

¶13

...Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to consider petitioner's representation dated 19.09.2024, 29.10.2024,22.11.2024 and 20.12.2024 and to appoint an new inquiry officer and to complete the inquiry officer and to complete the inquiry in the Charge Memo No.21503/EG2/2021 dated 10.11.2023 and pass final order in the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law within the time limit fixed by the Government vide Government Letter (MS)

¶15

1/6

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.No.564 of 2025

¶18

No.1115/Per/N/87 dated 22.12.1987 and G.O.Ms.No.81 HRM Department dated 04.08.2022 and pass orders.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr. P. Kumaravel For Respondent : Mr. Yogesh Kannadasan Special Government Pleader

¶20

ORDER

¶21

By consent of learned counsel on either side, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

¶22

This petition is filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to consider petitioner's representation dated 19.09.2024, 29.10.2024,22.11.2024 and 20.12.2024 and to appoint an new inquiry officer and to complete the inquiry officer and to complete the inquiry in the Charge Memo No.21503/EG2/2021 dated 10.11.2023 and pass final order in the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law within the time limit fixed by the Government vide Government Letter (MS) No.1115/Per/N/87 dated 22.12.1987 and G.O.Ms.No.81 HRM Department dated 04.08.2022 and pass orders.

¶23

2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

W.P.No.564 of 2025

¶25

The facts of the case is that the petitioner is working as Deputy Director in the Respondent/ Industry. While so, the second respondent has issued charge memo to the petitioner on 10.11.2023. After issuance of the said charge memorandum an enquiry officer was appointed to enquire into the matter and the petitioner also submitted his explanation in this regard. The sum and substance of the case is that the enquiry officer was transferred, due to which there is no progress in the enquiry. Pending enquiry juniors to the petitioner were promoted. Hence the petitioner has given a representation to the respondents on various dates for appointment of enquiry officer and to complete the disciplinary proceedings. Finally the petitioner has given the representation on 20.12.2024. However, the same was not considered till date. Hence, this petition.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it would be suffice if this Court issues a direction to the respondents to consider petitioner's representation and pass orders.

¶27

3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

W.P.No.564 of 2025

¶29

The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the

¶30

respondents submitted that they will consider the case of the petitioner on merits and in accordance with law.

¶31

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the

¶32

limited relief sought for by the petitioner, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, directs the respondents to consider

¶33

the petitioner's representation and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶34