Disposed

Pandiyarajan U v. The Superintendent of Prison

Madras HC27 Apr 2026WP(MD)/12309/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Prison department employee challenged enquiry officer's report and notice communicating it, alleging witnesses were not examined or cross-examined. Court held objections could be raised before the disciplinary authority at the notice stage; writ not entertainable during pending disciplinary proceedings. Petitioner granted two weeks to respond; disposed with no costs.

What did the court decide?

Two weeks granted to submit response to the 10.04.2026 proceedings; disciplinary authority to consider it in accordance with law. No costs; connected MPs closed.

Pandiyarajan U Vs The Superintendent of Prison — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

W.P(MD) No.12309 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated : 27.04.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶6

W.P(MD) No.12309 of 2026 and

¶7

W.M.P(MD)No.9336 & 9338 of 2026

U.Pandiyarajan

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Prison District Prison, Pudukottai District.

¶12

2.The Enquiry Officer and Jailor Womens Special Prison, Trichy-8. ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in No.SPWTR/151/2026/Asst-1 dated 06.04.2026 on the file of the Respondent No.2 and the Consequential Impugned order in No.cp-pdk/701/2025/sj2 dated 10.04.2026 on the file of the respondent No.1 and quash the same as

¶14

1/6

¶15

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

¶16

W.P(MD) No.12309 of 2026

¶17

illegal and consequently for a direction, directing the Respondent No.1 and 2 to conduct denovo enquiry by providing opportunity to examine and cross examine the witnesses to the charges relating to the criminal case in Crime No.229/2025 on the file of the Sub-Inspector of Police Golden Rock Police Station, Trichy District in accordance with the Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services Discipline and Appeal Rules 1955.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Aswin Raja Simman

¶19

For Respondents : Mr.S.Shaji Bino, Special Government Pleader

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This writ petition has been filed challenging the report of the Enquiry Officer in the disciplinary proceedings that are initiated against the petitioner and the proceedings communicating the said report of the Enquiry Officer affording an opportunity to the petitioner to raise his objections against the findings recorded in the report of the Enquiry Officer.

¶22

2/6

¶23

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

¶24

W.P(MD) No.12309 of 2026

¶25

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the report of the Enquiry Officer is totally lacunae and absolutely there is no basis for arriving at such a conclusion and without examining the relevant witnesses, the Enquiry Officer has come to such a conclusion without any basis.

¶26

3. He further submitted that the respondents are going to act mechanically basing on the report of the enquiry officer and pass final orders.

¶27

4. He also further submitted that though the petitioner specifically sought for cross examination of the Sub Inspector of Police Kamila Banu, Special Sub-Inspector of Police Palanivel, Police Constables Vignesh and Arivalagan, the same was not afforded to the petitioner.

¶28

3/6

¶29

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

¶30

W.P(MD) No.12309 of 2026

¶31

5. This is the exact stage where the petitioner is entitled to

¶32

raise all his objections on the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer as well as the manner in which the enquiry was conducted and point out the defects or procedural lapses in the matter of conducting an enquiry. The petitioner herein instead of availing the said opportunity, has rushed to this Court by filing the present writ petition alleging certain violation of the procedure prescribed under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1955.

¶33

6. As the impugned proceedings dated 10.04.2026 is only a notice affording an opportunity to the petitioner, it is for the petitioner to raise all his objections before the disciplinary authority and it is not for this Court to entertain the writ petition, while the disciplinary proceedings are pending before the respondents.

¶34

7. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, granting two weeks time to the petitioner to submit his response pursuant to the proceedings, dated 10.04.2026. In case, if the petitioner submits any

¶35

4/6

¶36

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

¶37

W.P(MD) No.12309 of 2026

¶38

such representation within the time stipulated above, the same shall be considered by the disciplinary authority in accordance with law. No

¶39

costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶40

27.04.2026

¶41

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶42

¶43

¶44

1.The Superintendent of Prison District Prison, Pudukottai District.

¶45

2.The Enquiry Officer and Jailor Womens Special Prison, Trichy-8.

¶46

5/6

¶47

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

¶48

W.P(MD) No.12309 of 2026

¶49

MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.

¶50

¶51

W.P(MD) No.12309 of 2026

¶52

27.04.2026

¶53

6/6

¶54

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

Pandiyarajan U v. The Superintendent of Prison

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pandiyarajan U v. The Superintendent of Prison

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Thirunavukkarasu Vs The Managing Director

V.Barathi Vs The Managing Director

S.Bright David, Vs The Management of

M.Xavier Vs S.Priyanka I.A.S.

The Secretary Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Athilakshmi Vs The Principal Secretary to Government