Allowed¶50

Ramuthai.M v. the Chief Engineer Personnel

Madras HC25 Nov 2025WP(MD)/10597/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.(MD) 10597 of 2021, Madras High Court Madurai Bench, judgment dated 25.11.2025 by Justice Abdul Quddhose. Certiorarified mandamus under Article 226 against TANGEDCO show cause notice dated 09.06.2021 proposing termination of part-time conservancy worker M.Ramuthai, absorbed w.e.f. 01.11.2005 by board proceedings dated 02.08.2011 despite 15.10.2005 cut-off for absorption. Show cause notice quashed for pre-determination of issue and belated issuance as an afterthought after earlier arrears writ petition and contempt notice; arbitrary and illegal; petitioner continues in service; no cases cited; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned show cause notice dated 09.06.2021 issued by the second respondent quashed; no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petition (W.M.P.(MD)No.8255 of 2021) closed.

Ramuthai.M Vs the Chief Engineer Personnel — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned show cause notice dated 09.06.2021 issued by the second respondent quashed; no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petition (W.M.P.(MD)No.8255 of 2021) closed.

¶50

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned show cause notice dated 09.06.2021 proposing termination of the petitioner's services is arbitrary and illegal on account of pre-determination of the issue therein, and therefore liable to be quashed by this Court under Article 226. +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

A show cause notice exists to enable the noticee to explain why the contemplated action should not be taken; where the authority has already pre-determined the issue within the show cause notice itself by asserting the outcome, the object of the show cause notice stands defeated, and a pre-determined show cause notice is one with which this Court can interfere.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

Since steps to terminate the petitioner's services were taken for the first time only through the impugned show cause notice dated 09.06.2021, though she had been absorbed in service with effect from 01.11.2005, the question of terminating her services at this belated stage does not arise.

¶40

Key takeaways

The surrounding facts and circumstances culminating in the issuance of the impugned show cause notice reveal that it was issued only as an afterthought in the year 2021, after the earlier writ petition on salary arrears and the contempt notice, despite the petitioner's absorption with effect from 01.11.2005.ratio¶49
The impugned show cause notice is arbitrary and illegal and has to be quashed; accordingly the show cause notice dated 09.06.2021 issued by the second respondent is quashed and the writ petition is allowed.ratio¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), Abdul Quddhose J., allowed W.P.(MD)No.10597 of 2021 filed by M.Ramuthai, a part-time conservancy worker of TANGEDCO who had been absorbed into service with effect from 01.11.2005 by board proceedings dated 02.08.2011, and quashed the show cause notice dated 09.06.2021 issued by the second respondent proposing termination of her services. Held: (i) the notice pre-determined the issue by asserting that the petitioner had been wrongfully absorbed, thereby defeating the very object of a show cause notice and inviting judicial interference; (ii) termination at so belated a stage - steps first taken only through the 2021 notice, over fifteen years after the effective date of absorption and nearly ten years after the board proceedings - does not arise; and (iii) the notice was issued only as an afterthought, following an earlier writ petition for salary arrears and a contempt notice by the petitioner, and was therefore arbitrary and illegal. Writ petition allowed; no costs; connected W.M.P.(MD)No.8255 of 2021 closed.

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.10597 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 25.11.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.10597 of 2021

¶7

and

¶8

W.M.P.(MD)No.8255 of 2021

M.Ramuthai

: Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Chief Engineer Personnel,

¶13

Tamil Nadu Generation Electricity Distribution Corporation Ltd.,

¶14

144, Annasalai,

¶15

Chennai – 600 002.

¶16

2.The Superintending Engineer,

¶17

Tamil Nadu Generation Electricity Distribution Corporation Ltd., Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle, K.Pudur, Madurai – 620 007. : Respondents

¶18

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the second respondent reference Memo No.me.pa.po/m.mi.pa.va/ma/Ni.A/Ni.pe.II/ou-1/Ko.Pa.Nee/2021 dated

¶19

1/7

¶20

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

¶21

W.P.(MD)No.10597 of 2021

¶22

09.06.2021 to quash the same and directing the respondents to continue the petitioner in service and to sanction, all other service and monetary benefits.

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.A.V.Arun for M/s.Meenakshi Rama Prabhu For Respondents : Mr.B.Ramanathan Standing Counsel

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned show cause notice dated 09.06.2021 issued by the second respondent. Under the impugned show cause notice, the respondents have called upon the petitioner to submit her explanation as to why her services should not be terminated.

¶26

2. According to the respondents, the petitioner was wrongly regularised in service of the respondent by the proceedings of the respondents dated 02.08.2011, with effect from 01.11.2005. The petitioner has challenged the impugned show cause notice on the ground that the respondents have pre-determined the issue and they have issued the impugned show cause notice arbitrarily and illegally despite the fact that the petitioner was absorbed in the services of the respondents with effect from 01.11.2005.

¶27

2/7

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.(MD)No.10597 of 2021

¶30

3. A counter affidavit has also been filed by the respondents

¶31

giving reasons as to why the petitioner's services has to be terminated as according to them, only part time conservancy workers who joined before 15.10.2005 were eligible for absorption in regular time scale of pay but since the petitioner as a part time conservancy worker was working with the respondents only after 15.10.2005 ie., she was appointed on 01.11.2005, she is not eligible to be absorbed in the services of the respondent. According to the respondents only under those circumstances, they were constrained to issue the impugned show cause notice seeking to terminate the services of the petitioner.

¶32

4. The following are the undisputed facts:

¶33

a) only through the board proceedings of the respondents dated 02.08.2011, the petitioner was absorbed into the service of the respondent with effect from 01.11.2005;

¶34

b) though the petitioner was absorbed with effect from 01.11.2005, only through the impugned show cause notice which is dated 09.06.2021, the respondents have called for an explanation from the petitioner as to why her services should not be terminated since she was appointed as a part-time conservancy worker only

¶35

3/7

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.(MD)No.10597 of 2021

¶38

from 01.11.2005, though as per the board proceedings, for the purpose of absorption, the part-time conservancy worker ought to have been appointed prior to 15.10.2005;

¶39

c) in the impugned show cause notice, the respondents have pre-determined the issue by asserting that the petitioner had been wrongly absorbed in the service of the respondent and in violation of the board proceedings dated 02.08.2011;

¶40

5. The petitioner is having the benefit of interim stay of the operation of the impugned show cause notice dated 09.06.2021 from 25.06.2021. The petitioner is still working with TANGEDCO [respondent] even now. Since steps have been taken to terminate the services of the petitioner only through the impugned show cause notice dated 09.06.2021, though the petitioner has been absorbed in the services of the respondent with effect from 01.11.2005, the question of terminating the services of the petitioner at this belated stage does not arise. As seen from the impugned show cause notice, the respondents have also pre-determined the issue by stating in the impugned show cause notice that wrongfully, the petitioner was absorbed in service with effect from 01.11.2005. Once the issue has been pre-determined by the respondents in the impugned show cause notice, the object of the show cause notice will get defeated.

¶41

4/7

¶42

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

¶43

W.P.(MD)No.10597 of 2021

¶44

The object of any show cause notice is to enable the noticee to provide explanation as to why action contemplated in the said show cause notice cannot be taken against her. But even before providing an opportunity for the petitioner to submit her explanation as seen from the show cause notice, the respondents have pre-determined the issue by holding that the petitioner has been wrongfully absorbed in the service of the respondent with effect from 01.11.2025.

¶45

6. In fact, the petitioner had earlier filed a Writ Petition before this Court after her absorption into service for the difference in arrears of salary payable to her and the same was also disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation seeking for payment of arrears of salary. Subsequently, a contempt notice was also issued by the petitioner to the respondents since the directions issued by this Court in the aforesaid Writ Petition was not complied with by the respondents. Only after the contempt notice was issued by the petitioner for the alleged disobedience of the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid Writ Petition, the respondents by way of an afterthought has issued the impugned show cause notice dated 09.06.2021 predetermining the issue by holding that the respondents had erroneously absorbed the petitioner into service with effect from

¶46

5/7

¶47

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

¶48

W.P.(MD)No.10597 of 2021

¶49

01.11.2005. The surrounding facts and circumstances which culminated in the issuance of the impugned show cause notice will categorically reveal that only as an afterthought, the impugned show cause notice has been issued in the year 2021, though the petitioner was absorbed into the services of the respondents with effect from 01.11.2005. As observed earlier, the respondents have also predetermined the issue in the impugned show cause notice. If the issue is predetermined, this Court can interfere with the impugned show cause notice.

¶50

7. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned show cause notice is arbitrary and illegal and it has to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned show cause notice dated 09.06.2021 issued by the second respondent is hereby quashed and this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶51

25.11.2025

¶52

Index :Yes / No Internet : Yes / No NCC : Yes/No MR

¶53

6/7

¶54

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

¶55

W.P.(MD)No.10597 of 2021

¶56

ABDUL QUDDHOSE., J.