Disposed¶40

K.Kanagaraju v. the Commissioner

Madras HC16 Jul 2026WP/11433/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tiruppur City Municipal Corporation; Junior Engineer dismissed; disciplinary enquiry; denial of opportunity to defend; certiorarified mandamus; Article 226; Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1981; suspension 14.10.2022; charge memo 23.11.2022; dismissal order 28.11.2023; remittal to recommence from charge-memo stage; document disclosure and enquiry timelines; natural justice; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned dismissal order set aside; matter remitted to the 1st respondent to recommence proceedings from the charge-memo stage, with timelines for supply of documents, petitioner's explanation and conclusion of enquiry; no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed. ¶40

K.Kanagaraju Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned dismissal order dated 28.11.2023 should be set aside on the ground that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to put forth his case in the disciplinary enquiry.

¶36

Court's answer

Since the petitioner was not given an opportunity to put forth his case and the interest of justice would be served by setting aside the impugned order, the matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent, who shall commence the disciplinary proceedings once again from the stage of issuance of the charge memo.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

The respondents shall, within three weeks from receipt of a copy of the order, provide to the petitioner all documents they propose to rely upon during the enquiry, and the petitioner shall submit his explanation within three weeks thereafter.

¶36

Key takeaways

Thereafter the enquiry shall commence and shall be concluded within a period of eight weeks.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (P.T. Asha, J.) disposes of WP No. 11433 of 2024 filed under Article 226 by a Junior Engineer of Tiruppur City Municipal Corporation dismissed by order of the Commissioner dated 28.11.2023 (Na.Ka.No.6359/C1/2022), following suspension on 14.10.2022 and a charge memo dated 23.11.2022 under the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1981. Finding that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to put forth his case, the Court set aside the impugned dismissal order and remitted the matter to the 1st respondent to recommence the proceedings from the stage of issuance of the charge memo, directing that all enquiry documents be supplied within three weeks, the petitioner's explanation be submitted within three weeks thereafter, and the enquiry be concluded within eight weeks. No costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

¶1

WP No. 11433 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 16-07-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA

¶6

WP No. 11433 of 2024 AND

¶7

WMP Nos. 12540 and 12542 OF 2024

¶8

K.Kanagaraju Junior Engineer, (removed From Service) Tiruppur City Municipal Corporation, No 9, Padmavathi Puram 4th Street Gandhi Nagar Tiruppur

¶9

..Petitioner(s)

¶10

¶11

The Commissioner Tiruppur City Municipal Corporation Tiruppur

¶12

The Director Of Municipal Administration No 75 Santhome High Road MRC Nagar, Raja Annamalaipuram Chennai 600 028

¶13

The Secretary To Government Municipal Administration And Water Supply Department Fort St George Secretariat Chennai 600 009

¶14

..Respondent(s)

¶15

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the

¶16

Page1 of 6

¶17

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

¶18

WP No. 11433 of 2024

¶19

records relating to the impugned order of the 1st Respondent issued in Na.Ka.No 6359 / C1 / 2022 dated 28.11.2023 imposing the penalty of Dismissal from service and quash the same and consequently to direct the 1st Respondent to restore the petitioner to the post of junior Engineer immediately, with all service and monetary benefits within a reasonable period as may be fixed by this Court.

¶20

For Petitioner(s): M/s R. Singaravelan,

¶21

Senior Counsel for Mr. T.Ranganathan

¶22

For Respondent(s): Mr.T. Gowthaman,

¶23

Additional Government General assisted by Mr. Sivalingam, Government Advocate for R1 to R3.

¶24

ORDER

¶25

This writ petition has been filed to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the 1^st respondent issued in Na.Ka.No.6359/C1/2022 dated 28.11.2023 imposing the penalty of dismissal from service and quash the same and consequently to direct the 1^st respondent to restore the petitioner to the post of Junior Engineer immediately, with all service and monetary benefits within a reasonable period as may be fixed by this Court.

¶26

__________ Page2 of 6

¶27

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

¶28

WP No. 11433 of 2024

¶29

The petitioner would submit that he was initially appointed as

¶30

Work Inspector in Tiruppur Municipality in 2006, promoted as Overseer in 2007, and thereafter promoted as Junior Engineer in 2019 after the Municipality was merged with Tiruppur City Municipal Corporation. The petitioner applied for casual leave for 14.10.2022 with permission to avail the holidays on 15.10.2022 and 16.10.2022. Though the leave application was accepted by the Assistant Commissioner, Zone-II, the 1^st respondent placed the petitioner under suspension by proceedings in Na.Ka.No.6359/C1/2022 dated 14.10.2022, alleging that the petitioner had gone on leave without permission. The petitioner would contend that the suspension was politically motivated. Subsequently, a charge memo dated 23.11.2022 was issued under the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1981. Though an Enquiry Officer was appointed, the petitioner was not supplied with the records required for submitting his defence statement. Thereafter, a series of show cause notices were issued, and despite the petitioner's detailed explanations, the 1^st respondent passed the impugned order dated 28.11.2023 imposing the penalty of dismissal from service. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

¶31

__________ Page3 of 6

¶32

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

¶33

WP No. 11433 of 2024

¶34

Heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶35

After the matter was extensively argued and considering the fact

¶36

that the petitioner has not been given an opportunity to put forth his case and that interest of justice would be served if the impugned order is set aside, the matter is remitted back to the 1^st respondent who shall commence the proceedings once again from the stage of issuance of the charge memo. The respondents shall, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, provide all the documents that they propose to rely upon during the enquiry to the petitioner, and the petitioner shall submit his explanation within a period of three weeks thereafter. Thereafter, the enquiry shall commence, and the same shall be concluded within a period of eight weeks.

¶37

__________ Page4 of 6

¶38

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

¶39

WP No. 11433 of 2024

¶40