Dismissed¶17

M.Sangeetha, v. The Sub Collector

Madras HC23 Jan 2026WP/24768/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras HC writ petition dismissed; suspension of Village Administrative Officer upheld; suspension order dated 22.04.2013 by Sub Collector, Tirupathur; Vigilance and Anti-Corruption complaint; no proof of acquittal produced; Article 226; certiorarified mandamus refused; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Since the petitioner produced no material establishing subsequent acquittal of the corruption charges on which the 2013 suspension was based, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order of suspension. ¶16

M.Sangeetha, Vs The Sub Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

2026:MHC:291

¶2

W.P.No.24768 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 23.01.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶6

W.P.No.24768 of 2015

¶7

M.Sangeetha ... Petitioner Vs. The Sub Collector, Tirupathur, Vellore District ... Respondent

¶8

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records relating to the impugned order passed by the respondent in his proceedings Rc.A1/1504/2013, dated 22.04.2013 and quash the same consequently direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service as Village Administrative Officer with all back-wages, attendant benefits and other monetary benefits.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prakasam For Respondent : Mr.U.M.Ravichandran, Special Government Pleader *****

¶10

1/4

¶11

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

¶12

W.P.No.24768 of 2015

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the suspension order dated 22.04.2013.

¶15

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

¶16

3.On a perusal of the impugned order of suspension, it is evident that the petitioner was placed under suspension based on a corruption complaint registered by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department. Though the order of suspension pertains to the year 2013, the petitioner has not produced any material to establish that he was subsequently acquitted of the corruption charges. In the absence of any such material, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order of suspension.

¶17

4.In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶18

23.01.2026

¶19

¶20

Index : Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes 2/4

¶21

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

¶22

W.P.No.24768 of 2015

¶23