Petitioner alleged non-compliance with a writ direction to conclude disciplinary proceedings within six weeks. The court found the charge memo had been sent for Vigilance vetting before the order was passed and that the vetted memo was under challenge in another writ petition, so it declined to entertain the contempt petition.
None; contempt petition closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Cont.P.(MD)No.1752 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 10.07.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI Cont.P.(MD)No.1752 of 2026
V.Thangapandi
...Petitioner
vs.
1.Dr.Atul Anand, The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Department, Secretariat, Chennai.
2.Nirmal Raj, The Industries Commissioner and Director of Industries and Commerce, SIDCO Corporate Office Building, Guindy, Chennai - 600 003.
...Contemnors
Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act praying to punish the contemnors / respondents for the deliberate and wilful disobedience of the order dated 26.02.2026 passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.5369 of 2026.
For Petitioner : Mr.H.Mohammed Imran M/s.Ajmal Associates
For Respondents : Mr.S.Sivasubramanian, Government Advocate
1/6
Cont.P.(MD)No.1752 of 2026
ORDER
The petitioner, who is facing disciplinary proceedings pursuant to the Charge Memo dated 31.05.2023, has filed a Writ Petition before this Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a stipulated time.
Cont.P.(MD)No.1752 of 2026
01.12.1978 and the Vigilance Commission's letter dated 29.12.1980. He also relied upon Paragraph 111(2) of the Vigilance Manual and submitted that the charges ought to have been vetted by the Vigilance Department. However, the same was not done while framing the charges. He submits that a request for vetting by the Vigilance Department was made as early as on 08.01.2026 and that the earlier Charge Memo has been referred to the Vigilance Department for vetting in accordance with the Vigilance Manual. However, the said proceedings dated 08.01.2026 were not placed before this Court when it passed the order in W.P.(MD) No.5369 of 2026 on 26.02.2026, and therefore, this anomaly has occurred. He further submits that the vetted Charge Memo dated 27.04.2026 has also been challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.14104 of 2026 and that this Court, by order dated 13.05.2026, granted an interim stay in W.M.P.(MD) No.10512 of 2026. According to him, in view of the above, the respondents are not in a position to comply with the earlier order.
Court had passed an order directing the respondents to conclude the proceedings within a stipulated time. The respondents are not justified in taking the stand that they had referred the charge memo to the Vigilance Department for vetting. According to the learned counsel, this stand has been 3/6
Cont.P.(MD)No.1752 of 2026
taken by the respondents in order to scuttle the petitioner's promotional opportunities by not completing the enquiry proceedings within the time stipulated by this Court. Therefore, he submits that clear contempt has been made out.
Court in W.P.(MD) No.5369 of 2026 dated 26.02.2026 has not been complied with and has been deliberately disobeyed by the respondents. The relevant portion of the above order dated 26.02.2026 is extracted hereunder:-
Cont.P.(MD)No.1752 of 2026
Department for vetting the charge memo. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this Contempt Petition.
Contempt Petition is closed.
10.07.2026
mbi
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary, Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Department, Secretariat, Chennai.
2.The Industries Commissioner and Director of Industries and Commerce, SIDCO Corporate Office Building, Guindy, Chennai - 600 003.
5/6
Cont.P.(MD)No.1752 of 2026
B .PUGALENDHI, J.
mbi
Cont.P.(MD)No.1752 of 2026
10.07.2026
6/6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondents wilfully disobeyed the direction dated 26.02.2026 to conclude disciplinary proceedings within six weeks.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
V.Thangapandi
Dr.Atul Anand, The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Department
Nirmal Raj, The Industries Commissioner and Director of Industries and Commerce
B.Pugalendhi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
