Dismissed¶28

G.Gobinath v. the Director of Agriculture

Madras HC21 Nov 2025WP(MD)/22448/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

G. Gobinath v. The Director of Agriculture, W.P(MD)No.22448 of 2019 (Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, decided 21.11.2025) - dismissal of belated challenge to 26.06.2019 suspension order (Proc.No.VCS2/99378/2017) of a Tamil Nadu Agriculture Department employee; pendency of FIR under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 treated as valid ground for suspension following R. Ganesan, W.P.(MD)No.16873 of 2022; prayer for pension and retirement benefits rejected; Article 226 certiorarified mandamus; connected W.M.P.(MD)No.19228 of 2019 closed; no costs.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was already 59 years old at the time of filing the writ petition, so a challenge raised at such length of time against the 2019 suspension has no significance. ¶21

G.Gobinath Vs the Director of Agriculture — Corruption | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.22448 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 21.11.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶6

WP(MD)No.22448 of 2019 & W.M.P.(MD)No.19228 of 2019

G.Gobinath

...Petitioner

vs.

1.The Director of Agriculture, Agriculture Departments, Chepauk, Chennai - 5.

¶11

2.The Joint Director of Agriculture, Agriculture Departments, Thiruviyaru Block, Thanjavur District. ...Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the impugned order in Proc.No.VCS2/99378/2017, dated 26.06.2019 passed by the 1st respondent regarding the suspension order and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to provide the pensions and disburse the retirement benefits and all other reliefs.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Packyaraj for Mr.S.Krishnan

¶14

For Respondents : Mr.M.Sarangan, Additional Government Pleader

¶15

1/4

¶16

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

¶17

W.P(MD)No.22448 of 2019

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned suspension order dated 26.06.2019 in Proceedings No.VCS2/99378/2017.

¶20

The age of the petitioner even at the time of filing of the Writ

¶21

Petition was 59 years. Therefore, the very challenge against the suspension at this very length of time will have no significance.

¶22

At this juncture, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would rely upon the Judgment of this Court in R.Ganesan vs. The Director of Agriculture and two others in W.P.(MD)No. 16873 of 2022, dated 14.09.2022, wherein, a co-accused who was charged for the offences under Sections 120(B), 420, 167, 471 and 409 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 13(1)(c) and (d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has challenged the similar suspension order, and the same was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by observing that the pendency of the First Information Report under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is valid ground to suspend the individual.

¶23

Therefore, this Court absolutely does not find any ground to interfere with the suspension order and apart from that, there are no public

¶24

2/4

¶25

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

¶26

W.P(MD)No.22448 of 2019

¶27

interest involved to interfere with the same. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merits in the present Writ Petition.

¶28

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶29

21.11.2025

¶30

Index : Yes/No NCC : Yes/No Internet :Yes mbi To 1.The Director of Agriculture, Agriculture Departments, Chepauk, Chennai - 5. 2.The Joint Director of Agriculture, Agriculture Departments, Thiruviyaru Block, Thanjavur District.

¶31

3/4

¶32

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

¶33

W.P(MD)No.22448 of 2019

¶34

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

¶35

mbi

¶36

WP(MD)No.22448 of 2019