Disposed¶24

T.Subash Bose (Retired) v. The State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC10 Apr 2026WP(MD)/10024/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WP(MD). No.10024 of 2026; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; decided 10.04.2026; Mummineni Sudheer Kumar J.; petitioner T.Subash Bose, retired Executive Officer, Village Panchayat; dismissal vide G.O.(P)No.387 dated 15.07.2024; delayed service of dismissal order; pending Rule 19 revision petition dated 17.11.2025 under Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955; writ of mandamus under Article 226; direction to dispose of revision within two months; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to dispose of the revision petition dated 17.11.2025 against G.O.(P)No.387, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (TP.3) Department, dated 15.07.2024, as expeditiously as possible and in any event within two months from receipt of a copy of the order; no costs. ¶24

T.Subash Bose (Retired) Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent should be directed to dispose of the petitioner's pending revision petition dated 17.11.2025 against G.O.(P)No.387 dated 15.07.2024 within a period stipulated by the Court.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

Without going into the merits of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to dispose of the revision petition dated 17.11.2025 filed by the petitioner against the orders issued in G.O.(P)No.387, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (TP.3) Department, Chennai, dated 15.07.2024.

¶24

Key takeaways

The revision petition shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), WP(MD) No.10024 of 2026, decided 10.04.2026 by Mummineni Sudheer Kumar, J. A retired Executive Officer of a Village Panchayat, dismissed from service by G.O.(P)No.387, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (TP.3) Department, dated 15.07.2024, alleged the dismissal order was not served for over a year and, soon after service, filed a revision petition dated 17.11.2025 under Rule 19 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, which remained unconsidered. He sought mandamus under Article 226 directing disposal of the revision within a stipulated period. The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that if the revision petition accorded with law and was pending, it would be considered and disposed of expeditiously. Without going into the merits, the Court disposed of the writ petition directing the respondent to decide the revision petition as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from receipt of a copy of the order. No costs.

¶1

WP(MD). No.10024 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated : 10.04.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶6

WP(MD). No.10024 of 2026

¶7

T.Subash Bose (Retired) Executive Officer

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Secretariat,Chennai-9. ... Respondent

¶11

PRAYER:- Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to dispose the petitioners Revision Petition dated 17.11.2025 within the period that may be stipulated by this Honble Court.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.H.Mohamed Imran for M/s. Ajmal Associates For Respondent : Mr.S.Shaji Bino Special Government Pleader

¶13

1/4

¶14

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

¶15

WP(MD). No.10024 of 2026

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Shaji Bino, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondent.

¶18

The petitioner herein while working as the Executive Officer of Village Panchayat was subjected to disciplinary proceedings resulting in imposition punishment of dismissal from service through proceedings bearing G.O.No.387 dated 15.07.2024. The petitioner claims that the said order of dismissal was not served on the petitioner for more than one year and immediately after the same was served upon the petitioner, he has preferred revision petition under Rule 19 of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 and since the said revision is not considered by the first respondent, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

¶19

3.The learned Special Government Pleader faily submitted that in case if the revision petition filed by the petitioner is in accordance with law and the same is pending as on date, the same would be considered and disposed of by the respondent expeditiously.

¶20

2/4

¶21

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

¶22

WP(MD). No.10024 of 2026

¶23

In the light of the above, without going into the merits of the

¶24

matter, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to dispose of the revision petition dated 17.11.2025 filed by the petitioner against the orders issued in G.O.(P)No.387, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (TP.3) Department, Chennai, dated 15.07.2024 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

10.04.2026