D.Chandrasekaran, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

respondent to consider and dispose of the appeal preferred by the second respondent to consider and dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner on 09.01.2021 against the order of removal from service passed by the fourth respondent on 16.11.2020, on merits and in accordance with law, within such time as may be stipulated by this Honble Court.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.H.Mohamed Zamil for M/s.Ajmal Associates

¶20

For Respondents : Mr.M.Dinesh Hari Sudarsan Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu(Civil Side)

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The short grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that as against the punishment imposed upon the petitioner by order of the fourth respondent vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.m3/72316/2006 16.11.2020, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, namely, the second respondent herein on 09.01.2021 and the said appeal is not being taken up for consideration and has been kept pending for all these years. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition seeking appropriate directions to

¶23

2/6

¶24

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

¶25

WP(MD). No.19126 of 2026

¶26

the second respondent for consideration of the appeal filed by the petitioner and for disposal at the earliest.

¶27

2. When the matter is taken up for consideration, Mr.M.Dinesh Hari Sudarshan, learned Counsel for Government appearing for the respondents, on instructions, submitted that the appeal filed by the petitioner before the second respondent has been forwarded to the third respondent and the third respondent, in turn, passed orders on the same on 22.09.2021 vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.m3/72316/2006.

¶28

3. It is not in dispute that as against the order passed by the fourth respondent, the competent authority to entertain appeal is only the second respondent and the third respondent has nothing to do with the same. However, it is also brought to the notice of this Court that the second respondent as a matter of fact forwarded the appeal filed by the petitioner for submitting remarks, but the third respondent instead of submitting remarks to the second respondent, disposed of the same by issuing the proceedings dated 22.09.2021. A copy of the said proceeding dated 22.09.2021 passed by the third respondent is also placed before this

¶29

3/6

¶30

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

¶31

WP(MD). No.19126 of 2026

¶32

Court. A perusal of the same does not indicate that the appeal filed by the petitioner has been disposed of by the third respondent. What emerges from the above is that the appeal filed by the petitioner before the second respondent has not been disposed of by the second respondent as on date in accordance with law.

¶33

4. In the circumstances, the second respondent being a statutory appellate authority, is under obligation to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of punishment suffered by the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶34

5. In the light of the above, the second respondent is directed to dispose of the appeal dated 09.01.2021 filed by the petitioner against the proceedings Na.Ka.No.m3/72316/2006 16.11.2020 passed by the fourth respondent, if necessary by calling for the same from the third respondent, as expeditiously as possible at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by affording an opportunity to the petitioner.

¶35

4/6

¶36

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

¶37

WP(MD). No.19126 of 2026

¶38

6. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶39

08.07.2026 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No CM

¶40

TO 1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Revenue Administration and Disaster Management Department, Secretariat, Chennai.