Dismissed¶48

T.Palanisamy v. the Commissioner

Madras HC4 Jun 2026WP/18714/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Premature writ challenge to show-cause notice proposing dismissal from service under Rule 8, Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, following conviction under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Ss.13(l)(c), 13(2)) and IPC Ss.120(B), 409, 420, 467, 471 in Spl.C.C.No.21 of 2024; petitioner sought stay pending Criminal Appeal No.424 of 2025; KVVT / Kalaignar Veetu Vasathi Thittam scheme irregularities; DVAC Vellore enquiry; Ranipet Special Judge; Article 226 certiorarified mandamus; Madras High Court; Justice P.T. Asha; decided 04-06-2026; writ dismissed, WMP closed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

The impugned proceeding is nothing but a notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the penalty of dismissal from service cannot be imposed against him. ¶12

T.Palanisamy Vs the Commissioner — Corruption | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned show-cause notice (R.C.No.82589/2024/VC 1.1 dated 19.02.2026) proposing dismissal from service should be quashed. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

The impugned proceeding is nothing but a notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the penalty of dismissal from service cannot be imposed against him.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner, without giving an explanation, rushed to this Court by invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction.

¶12

Key takeaways

The allegations under the Prevention of Corruption Act have been made out against the petitioner and the proceeding itself is at a preliminary stage.ratio¶12
The petitioner is attempting to forestall the proceeding being initiated against him for allegation of corrupt practice.ratio¶12
The Court declined to quash the show-cause notice or to stay the disciplinary proceedings pending the outcome of Criminal Appeal No.424 of 2025, and dismissed the writ petition.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (P.T. Asha, J.), 04-06-2026 — W.P. No.18714 of 2026 (T. Palanisamy v. Commissioner, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj) DISMISSED. A Junior Engineer retained in service beyond superannuation (30.06.2016) pending disciplinary action over alleged irregularities in the Kalaignar Veetu Vasathi Thittum/Vasathi Thittam (KVVT) scheme sought certiorarified mandamus under Article 226 to quash the respondent's show-cause notice R.C.No.82589/2024/VC 1.1 dated 19.02.2026 — issued after his conviction in Spl.C.C.No.21 of 2024 (Ss.120(B), 409, 420, 467, 471 IPC r/w Ss.13(l)(c), 13(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; one year S.I. per count, Rs.6000/- fine) — proposing dismissal under Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, and to stay further action till disposal of Criminal Appeal No.424 of 2025. Held: the impugned proceeding is merely a preliminary show-cause notice; the petitioner rushed to Court without submitting an explanation, attempting to forestall proceedings for alleged corrupt practice; allegations under the PC Act stand made out and the proceeding is at a preliminary stage. Writ dismissed; connected WMP No.19994 of 2026 closed; no costs.

¶1

WP No. 18714 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 04-06-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

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

¶6

WP No. 18714 of 2026 & WMP No. 19994 of 2026

T.Palanisamy

..Petitioner(s)

The Commissioner Rural development and Panchayat Raj, Directorate of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Saidapet, Chennai - 600015.

¶11

..Respondent(s)

¶12

Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶13

of India seeking writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the respondent passed in his proceedings R.C.No.82589/2024/VC 1.1 dated 19.02.2026 and quash the same and to direct the respondent to await the final outcome of the Criminal Appeal No.424 of 2025 before proceeding any further against the petitioner.

¶14

For Petitioner(s): Mr. K.Bhasdker

¶15

For Respondent(s): Mr. K.Sathish Government Advocate

¶16

Page1 of 8

¶17

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

¶18

WP No. 18714 of 2026

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

¶21

“To call for the records of the respondent passed in his proceedings R.C.No.82589/2024/VC 1.1 dated 19.02.2026 and quash the same and to direct the respondent to await the final outcome of the Criminal Appeal No.424 of 2025 before proceeding further against the petitioner.”

¶22

The petitioner joined as a Junior Engineer in Anicut Union Kaveripakkam EDO Block, then Vellore District now Ranipet District on 11.11.2011. Subsequently, the petitioner was transferred to Madhanur Union and attained superannuation on 30.06.2016, however, he was retained in service and not allowed to retire on account of the ongoing disciplinary action for alleged irregularities in executing the Kalaignar Veetu Vasadi Thittum (KVVT Scheme) in Karnavoor Panchayat of Anaicut Union Kaveripakkam Block.

¶23

The petitioner would submit that vide G.O.Ms No.68, Rural Development and Panchyat Raj dated 14.06.2010, the Government

¶24

Page2 of 8

¶25

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

¶26

WP No. 18714 of 2026

¶27

implemented a scheme to replace huts into concrete houses. There were 43 beneficiaries from Vedanthangal Village, Kamavor Panchayat from Kaveripakkam BDO Block. Among the said 43 beneficiaries, 10 houses were the subject matter of the disciplinary action and enquiry. The beneficiaries have commenced their construction works and completed the 1^st stage i.e. basement level and already the petitioner’s predecessor had approved the M-Book and Rs.l0,000/-was released to each beneficiary.

¶28

The petitioner would submit that each beneficiary is entitled to a sum of Rs.75,000/- for constructing concrete house measuring 200 sq.ft and this amount was released in 4 stages. In the 1^st stage i.e. after completing basement level Rs.l0,000/-, would be released. In the 2^nd stage i.e. Lintel stage a sum of Rs.25,000/- would be released, on completion of roof a sum of Rs.20,000/- would be released and at final stage Rs.20,000/would be released. The construction of every stage is supervised by the Overseer and the progress of each stage is recorded in M-Book and finally completion report will be prepared. The petitioner had to super check the construction and cross check the M-Book and approve it. Subsequently, the BDO will sanction funds to the Village panchayat account which in turn will be approved by the Village President and the beneficiaries by

¶29

Page3 of 8

¶30

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

¶31

WP No. 18714 of 2026

¶32

themselves will encash the amount from the bank directly.

¶33

The petitioner came to learn that anonymous complaints were

¶34

received in Vigilance Office, Vellore alleging that Karnavoor Panchayat President Mrs.Valliamman and two others have colluded and swindled the allotment of funds sanctioned for 10 beneficiaries in that Village Panchayat. Subsequent to that, FIR was lodged and an elaborate enquiry was conducted by the DVAC, Vellore and based on the final report charge sheet has been filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore in Spl.C.C.NO.19 of 2019 and subsequently the same was transferred to the file of the Special Judge / Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranipet as Spl.C.C.No.21 of 2024.

¶35

The case of the prosecution was that the petitioner along with other accused, conspired and misappropriated funds amounting to Rs.4,67,602/- under the Kalaignar Veetu Vasathi Thittam (KVVT Scheme) during July 2011 to November 2013 in Kamavoor Panchayat by fabricating records and making false entries.

¶36

__________ Page4 of 8

¶37

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

¶38

WP No. 18714 of 2026

¶39

The petitioner would submit that the release of funds without his approval approval was done by the BDO, Kaveripakkam A-1 and the same was not attributable to him. There was no collusion or conspiracy on his part. The petitioner would submit that the trial court failed to properly appreciate the documentary evidence and wrongly convicted him without considering that he had not approved incomplete works.

¶40

The petitioner would submit that he was convicted along with four others by the learned Special Judge / Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranipet, in Spl.C.C.No.21 of 2024 by judgment dated 17.04.2025, for offences under Sections 120(B), 409, 420, 467, 471 IPC read with Sections 13(l)(c), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year under each count along with a total fine of Rs.6000/- with sentences to run concurrently.

¶41

The petitioner would submit that based on the above conviction, the respondent has proposed to impose the penalty of dismissal from service under Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and called upon him to submit his explanation under Rule 17(c)(i)(l) vide the impugned order dated 19.02.2026.

¶42

__________ Page5 of 8

¶43

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

¶44

WP No. 18714 of 2026

¶45

Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶46

Heard the learned counsel and perused the records.

¶47

A perusal of the impugned proceeding clearly shows that it is nothing but a notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the penalty of dismissal from service cannot be imposed against the petitioner. The petitioner without giving an explanation has rushed to this Court by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. The allegations under the Prevention of Corruption Act has been made out against the petitioner and the proceeding itself is at preliminary stage. The petitioner is attempting to forestall the proceeding being initiated against him for allegation of corrupt practice.

¶48

Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶49

04-06-2026

¶50

KAN

¶51

__________ Page6 of 8

¶52

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

¶53

WP No. 18714 of 2026

¶54

¶55

The Commissioner Rural development and Panchayat Raj, Directorate of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Saidapet, Chennai - 600015.

¶56

__________ Page7 of 8

¶57

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

WP No. 18714 of 2026

P.T.ASHA, J.

KAN

WP No. 18714 of 2026

¶62

04-06-2026

¶63

__________ Page8 of 8

¶64

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

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Show-cause notice in proceedings R.C.No.82589/2024/VC 1.1 dated 19.02.2026 calling upon the petitioner to explain why the penalty of dismissal from service cannot be imposed.¶12
The Commissioner, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (respondent) · 19.02.2026
Prior proceeding
Petitioner joined as Junior Engineer in Anicut Union Kaveripakkam EDO Block (then Vellore District, now Ranipet District) on 11.11.2011.¶22
Prior proceeding
Petitioner attained superannuation on 30.06.2016 but was retained in service, not allowed to retire, on account of ongoing disciplinary action over alleged KVVT scheme irregularities.¶22
Prior proceeding
Prosecution case: petitioner along with other accused conspired and misappropriated Rs.4,67,602/- under the KVVT Scheme (July 2011 to November 2013) in Kamavoor Panchayat by fabricating records and making false entries.¶35
Prior proceeding
Charge sheet filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore in Spl.C.C.NO.19 of 2019 following FIR and DVAC, Vellore enquiry.¶34
Prior proceeding
The criminal case was transferred to the file of the Special Judge / Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranipet as Spl.C.C.No.21 of 2024.¶34
Prior proceeding
Petitioner convicted along with four others by the learned Special Judge / Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranipet, in Spl.C.C.No.21 of 2024 by judgment dated 17.04.2025.¶40
Prior proceeding
Conviction was for offences under Sections 120(B), 409, 420, 467, 471 IPC read with Sections 13(l)(c), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.¶40
Prior proceeding
Sentence: simple imprisonment for one year under each count along with a total fine of Rs.6000/-, sentences to run concurrently.¶40
Prior proceeding
Based on the conviction, the respondent proposed to impose the penalty of dismissal from service under Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.¶41
Prior proceeding
Petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation under Rule 17(c)(i)(l) vide the impugned order dated 19.02.2026.¶41
Prior proceeding
Criminal Appeal No.424 of 2025 against the conviction is pending; petitioner sought a direction that the respondent await its final outcome before proceeding further.¶13

T.Palanisamy v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Palanisamy v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Munisamy Vs The Managing Director

T.Panneerselvam Vs the Managing Director

P.Raveendaran Vs The Principal Secretary to Government

K.A. Sagaya Jayaraj Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

N.Sathya Vs The Secretary to Government

M.Suresh Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu