Dismissed¶45

Thangapandi v. The District Collector

Madras HC13 Aug 2025WP(MD)/22207/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Locus standi of third-party complainant in departmental/disciplinary proceedings; writ of mandamus (Article 226) seeking departmental action against government aided middle school teacher dismissed; Rajnit Prasad v. Union of India, (2000) 9 SCC 313, applied; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, W.P.(MD)No.22207 of 2025, decided 13.08.2025 by M.Dhandapani, J.

What did the court decide?

Disciplinary action against a public servant is the prerogative right of the employer. ¶39

Thangapandi Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether a private complainant, being a third party unconnected with any departmental proceedings against the fifth respondent, has locus standi to seek a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 4 to take departmental action against the fifth respondent on his representation dated 03.06.2025.

¶39

Court's answer

Disciplinary action against a public servant is the prerogative right of the employer.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner, being a third party to any departmental proceedings against the fifth respondent, has no locus standi to seek judicial view of such action; the relief sought is not maintainable, and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.

¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.(MD)No.22207 of 2025 (Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, M.Dhandapani, J., decided 13.08.2025): Thangapandi, a resident of N.Kamarajapuram, Narippiyoor Village, Kadaladi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 to 4 to take departmental action against the fifth respondent (Narayanan), working as a Teacher in a government aided middle school, based on the petitioner's representation dated 03.06.2025 alleging that the fifth respondent consumed alcohol and induced school students. The official respondents produced a reply dated 17.06.2025 of the school's Headmistress and Secretary stating the alleged incident had not happened and the complaint itself was wrong. Holding that taking disciplinary action against a public servant is the prerogative right of the employer, and applying Rajnit Prasad v. Union of India and Others, (2000) 9 SCC 313, the Court found that the petitioner, being a third party to any departmental proceedings against the fifth respondent, has no locus standi, the relief sought was not maintainable. Notice to the fifth respondent was dispensed with and the writ petition, taken up at admission, was dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.22207 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 13.08.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.22207 of 2025

¶7

Thangapandi : Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The District Collector,

¶10

Office of the District Collector, Ramanathapuram District.

¶11

The Joint Director (Aided Schools), School Education Department, Chennai.

¶12

The Chief Educational Officer, Office of the Chief Educational Office, Ramanathapuram District.

¶13

The District Educational Officer, Office of the District Educational Office, Mandapam, Ramanathapuram District.

¶14

Narayanan

¶15

: Respondents

¶16

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 herein to take necessary departmental action against the 5 th respondent by considering the petitioner's representation dated 03.06.2025 in accordance with law within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶17

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

¶18

1/6

¶19

W.P.(MD)No.22207 of 2025

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Malaiyendran

¶21

For Respondents : Mr.M.Siddharthan (R1 to R4)

¶22

Additional Government Pleader

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents 1 to 4 herein to take necessary departmental action against the 5 th respondent by considering the petitioner's representation dated 03.06.2025 in accordance with law within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶25

2. Considering the nature of the order proposed to be passed in this writ petition, notice to the fifth respondent is dispensed with and this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

¶26

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a resident of N.Kamarajapuram, Narippiyoor Village, Kadaladi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District and the fifth respondent, who

¶27

is working as a Teacher in Chathiriya Hindu Nadar Nadu Nilaya Palli, which is a government aided middle school, consumed alcohol and

¶28

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

¶29

2/6

¶30

W.P.(MD)No.22207 of 2025

¶31

induced the school students and hence, the petitioner made a complaint before the third respondent, who in turn forwarded the same to the fourth respondent for conducting appropriate enquiry. However, no order was passed till date. Hence, the petitioner came before this Court.

¶32

4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents submits that the petitioner made a complaint before the third respondent, who in turn, directed the fourth respondent to conduct enquiry. The fourth respondent conducted an enquiry on the allegations levelled against the fifth respondent. The Headmistress and

¶33

the Secretary of the aforesaid school, where the petitioner is working, sent a reply dated 17.06.2025 stating that the incident which was mentioned in the allegation levelled against the fifth respondent was not happened and the said complaint itself is wrong. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents has also produced the reply dated 17.06.2025 submitted by the Headmistress and the Secretary of the aforesaid school.

¶34

5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the

¶35

materials placed before this Court.

¶36

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

¶37

3/6

¶38

W.P.(MD)No.22207 of 2025

¶39

6. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the complaint made against the fifth respondent itself is wrong. Even if it is so, it is for the employer, who is the disciplinary authority to take appropriate action. Taking disciplinary action against a public servant is the prerogative right of the employer. The issue raised in this Writ Petition is no longer res integra and has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Rajnit Prasad v. Union of India and Others , reported in (2000) 9 SCC 313 . The relevant paragraph is extracted below:

¶40

“... In respect of departmental proceedings which are initiated or sought to be initiated by the Government against its employees, a person who is not even remotely connected with those proceedings cannot challenge any aspect of the departmental proceedings or action by filing a Writ Petition in the High Court or in this Court. Disciplinary action against an employee is taken by the Government for various reasons principally for "misconduct" on the part of the employee. This action is taken after a "domestic" enquiry in which the employee is provided an opportunity of hearing as required by the constitutional mandate. It is essentially a matter between the employer and the employee, and a stranger, much less a practising advocate, cannot be said to have any interest in those proceedings. Public interest of general importance is not involved in disciplinary proceedings. In fact, if such petitions are entertained at the instance of persons who are not connected with those proceedings, it would amount to an abuse of the process of Court. ”

¶41

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

¶42

4/6

¶43

W.P.(MD)No.22207 of 2025

¶44

7. Applying the above ratio in the present case, this Court is of the

¶45

considered view that that the petitioner, being a third party to any departmental proceedings against the fifth respondent, has no locus standi to seek judicial view of such action. In light of the above, the relief sought by the petitioner is not maintainable. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶46

13.08.2025

¶47

Index : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No Sm

¶48

To:-

¶49