Allowed¶46

Beneesh Jenophin.W v. The District Collector

Service law – Disciplinary proceedings

Madras HC27 Oct 2025WP(MD)/27882/2023

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Inordinate delay in framing charges; unexplained delay vitiates charge memo; quashing of charge memo and recovery proceedings dated 13.02.2023; disciplinary enquiry delay without explanation; Article 226 writ of certiorari; administrative sanction for compound wall construction after petitioner left Panchayat Union office; Sathankulam Panchayat Union; Thoothukudi District; interim stay from 24.11.2023; Abdul Quddhose J.; decision date 27.10.2025; W.P.(MD)No.27882 of 2023.

What did the court decide?

Impugned charge memo and recovery proceedings dated 13.02.2023 quashed; writ petition allowed with no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed. ¶46

Beneesh Jenophin.W Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned charge memo and recovery proceedings dated 13.02.2023 quashed; writ petition allowed with no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned charge memo dated 13.02.2023, issued after an inordinate delay of about 10 years from the incident of 16.04.2013 and without any explanation for the delay, is liable to be quashed along with the consequential recovery proceedings. +1 more

¶30

Court's answer

As settled by various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, a charge memo issued with inordinate delay in framing charges, without proper explanation for the delay, is illegal.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

On the facts, the charge memo framed almost 10 years after the alleged incident of 16.04.2013, with no proper reasons for the delay in the counter, had to be quashed on the ground of inordinate delay in framing charges.

¶40

Key takeaways

The impugned charge memo as well as the recovery proceedings dated 13.02.2023 were quashed; the writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.ratio¶45
The court noted that the petitioner had placed on record sufficient materials, including the administrative sanction, showing that he was no longer in the services of the subject Panchayat Union office at the time the sanction for the compound wall was granted.obiter¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service law — Disciplinary proceedings — Charge memo and recovery proceedings dated 13.02.2023 (Na.Ka.No.Va2/699/2015-2 and Se.Mu.No.Va2/699/2015-3) issued to a Panchayat Union official in respect of an incident of 16.04.2013, i.e., after a lapse of about 10 years — Counter filed by respondents gave no reasons for the delay in framing charges — Held, applying settled law of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Madras High Court that a charge memo issued with inordinate unexplained delay is illegal, the charge memo and recovery proceedings were quashed — Writ petition under Article 226 allowed, no costs; interim stay operating since 24.11.2023 culminated in final relief — (Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Abdul Quddhose, J., 27.10.2025).

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.27882 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 27.10.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.27882 of 2023

¶7

and

¶8

W.M.P.(MD)Nos.23983 of 2023 & 382 of 2025

W.Beneesh Jenophin

: Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector,

¶13

Thoothukudi District,

¶14

Thoothukudi.

¶15

2.The Commissioner,

¶16

Sathankulam Panchayat Union,

¶17

Thoothukudi District.

¶18

3.The Executive Engineer / Enquiry Officer,

¶19

Rural Development Agency, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi. : Respondents

¶20

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶21

India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records on the file 1/7

¶22

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

¶23

W.P.(MD)No.27882 of 2023

¶24

of the first respondent in connection with the impugned charge memo as well as recovery proceedings issued in Na.Ka.No.Va2/699/2015-2 and Se.Mu.No.Va2/699/2015-3 dated 13.02.2023 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary.

¶25

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu

¶26

For Respondents : Mr.C.Satheesh,

¶27

Government Advocate

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned charge memo dated 13.02.2023 issued to the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the impugned charge memo arbitrarily on the ground that there has been an inordinate delay in the issuance of the impugned charge memo on the petitioner.

¶30

2. Admittedly, the incident which is subject matter of the impugned charge memo took place on 16.04.2013. However, the impugned charge memo has been issued on 13.02.2023 ie., after a lapse of 10 years from the date of the incident, which is clearly an inordinate delay. Consequent to the issuance of the impugned charge memo dated 13.02.2023, the respondents have also issued a recovery order dated 13.02.2023 seeking to recover the alleged loss

¶31

2/7

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.(MD)No.27882 of 2023

¶34

suffered by the respondents. The petitioner also contends in the affidavit filed in support of this Writ Petition that the allegation levelled against him in the impugned charge memo is false. According to him, he was never working in the Panchayat Union office at the relevant point of time and therefore, the charge that he has sanctioned funds for construction of a compound wall for Panchayat Union office in the land which has already been allotted to the court for construction of judicial officers quarters is incorrect and is false. The petitioner had also placed on record the administrative sanction granted by the respondents for the construction of the compound wall, which will make it clear that the said sanction was granted only after the petitioner had left the Panchayat Union office.

¶35

3. Eventhough, a counter has been filed by the respondents, on the merits of the impugned charges framed against the petitioner, there is no reason given by the respondents in the counter as to why there has been an inordinate delay in framing the impugned charges against the petitioner. The law has been well settled by various decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court that in case of inordinate delay in framing charges without proper explanation, for the said delay, the charge memo issued with

¶36

3/7

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.(MD)No.27882 of 2023

¶39

an inordinate delay is illegal. In the case on hand, in the counter filed before this Court, no proper reasons have been given by the respondents for the inordinate delay in framing charges against the petitioner. The petitioner has also placed on record sufficient materials to prove that at the time of administrative sanction granted by the respondents for the construction of compound wall, the petitioner was no longer in the services of the subject Panchayat Union office. He has also categorically pleaded that he is innocent of the charges framed against him and no way responsible for the alleged incident which resulted in the framing of the charges against the petitioner.

¶40

4. Admittedly, for an incident which happened on 16.04.2013, the impugned charges has been framed against the petitioner on 13.02.2023 ie., after a lapse of almost 10 years from the date of the alleged incident, which the petitioner also categorically contends with supporting documents to prove that he is not responsible for the alleged misconduct. Therefore, on the ground of inordinate delay in the framing of charges necessarily, the impugned charge memo has to be quashed. The petitioner is also having the benefit of an interim order right from 24.11.2023, granting interim stay of the operation of the impugned charge memo.

¶41

4/7

¶42

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

¶43

W.P.(MD)No.27882 of 2023

¶44

5. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned charge memo as

¶45