Disposed¶28

Nagalingam v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC4 Jun 2026WP/35483/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Infructuous writ petition against charge memo; Madras High Court, Art.226 certiorari; charge memo No.63 of 2004 dt.14.11.2004; penalty order passed by disciplinary authority and challenged in separate writ petition; endorsement by counsel; petition closed as infructuous, no costs; Superintendent of Police, Railways, Egmore, Chennai; Judge: T. Vinod Kumar.

What did the court decide?

None; the Writ Petition was closed as infructuous with no order as to costs. ¶28

Why is it important?

Nagalingam Vs the Superintendent of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

W.P.No.35483 of 2004

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 04.06.2026

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶6

W.P.No.35483 of 2004

¶7

Nagalingam .. Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

The Superintendent of Police, Railways – Egmore – Chennai – 600 008. .. Respondent

¶10

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records on the file of the respondent in connection with the impugned charge memo, dated 14.11.2004 bearing No.63 of 2004 issued against the petitioner and quash the same.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.Mythilisrinivas For Respondent : Ms.Y.Kavitha, Additional Government Pleader

¶12

1/4

¶13

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

¶14

W.P.No.35483 of 2004

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the present Writ

¶17

Petition has been filed against charge memo issued to the petitioner.

¶18

The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that

¶19

subsequently, on the respondent passing an order of penalty, the same is challenged by way of a separate Writ Petition and as such, the cause in the present Writ Petition does not survive for consideration and thus, the Writ Petition has become infructuous.

¶20

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also made an

¶21

endorsement to the above effect in the Court bundle.

¶22

In view of the aforesaid submission and taking note of the fact

¶23

that the present Writ Petition is filed against charge memo which has been subsequently adjudicated by the disciplinary authority, where, again the petitioner is stated to have availed further remedies, this Court is of the view that the cause in the present Writ Petition does not survive for consideration and thus, the Writ Petition has become infructuous.

¶24

2/4

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.No.35483 of 2004

¶27