Disposed¶48

V.Kanikumar v. The Home Secretary

Madras HC10 Mar 2026WP(MD)/1986/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Drought relief fund 2016-2017 Nilakottai Taluk Dindigul District; input subsidy misappropriation; Village Administrative Officers and Village Assistant disciplinary action; suspension; stoppage of increment; removal from service; revenue recovery proceedings Rs.4,37,510; recovery Rs.20,971; allotment Rs.112 crore; enquiry Na.Ka. 777/2017/EE1; FIR Cr.No.3 of 2018; Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Dindigul; Article 226 Constitution of India writ of mandamus; Madras High Court Madurai Bench; W.P.(MD)No.1986 of 2020; writ petition closed 10.03.2026; N.Sathish Kumar J. and M.Jothiraman J.

What did the court decide?

Official respondents directed to complete the pending enquiry and recover any recoverable amounts without further delay; writ petition otherwise closed with no further order, no costs. ¶48

V.Kanikumar Vs The Home Secretary — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Official respondents directed to complete the pending enquiry and recover any recoverable amounts without further delay; writ petition otherwise closed with no further order, no costs.

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether respondents 1 and 4 should be directed to initiate disciplinary and criminal proceedings against respondents 5 to 13 based on the enquiry conducted by the third respondent (Na.Ka. 777/2017/EE1) and file a status report. +1 more

¶26

Court's answer

Perusal of the status report reveals disciplinary proceedings have already been initiated against the erred officials and the 12th respondent has been removed from service.

¶45

Ratio / Principle

Allegations against the fifth respondent were not acted upon because she joined the office only in 2017 and the beneficiaries had been identified prior to that.

¶45

Key takeaways

Since action has already been taken and a criminal case has been registered in Cr.No.3 of 2018, no further order is required.ratio¶45
Official respondents are directed to complete the pending enquiry and, if any amount is recovered, the same shall be recovered without any further delay.ratio¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MADRAS HIGH COURT (MADURAI BENCH), W.P.(MD)No.1986 of 2020, decided 10.03.2026 (order by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J., sitting with M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.). Petitioner V.Kanikumar sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 directing respondents 1 (Home Secretary) and 4 (Dy.SP, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption) to initiate disciplinary and criminal proceedings against respondents 5-13 (Tahsildar Nirmalagracy, five Village Administrative Officers R6-R11, Village Assistant Pandeeswaran R12, and Special Tahsildar Eugine R13) over the alleged non-disbursement/misappropriation of the 2016-2017 drought relief/input subsidy funds in Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District, pursuant to the District Collector's enquiry in Na.Ka. 777/2017/EE1. Status report of the District Collector: Rs.112 crore allotted to the district; SDRO (NH) inquiry report dated 29.06.2018 found certain Village Administrative Officers, Village Assistants and a temporary Junior Assistant involved; the 6th respondent VAO was suspended and punished with stoppage of increment (two years, without cumulative effect); Village Assistant Vijayaraja was suspended on 11.11.2017 with Rs.20,971/- recovered and remitted; the 12th respondent Village Assistant was removed from service with Rs.4,37,510/- assessed as misappropriated and revenue recovery proceedings initiated; temporary employees terminated; criminal case Cr.No.3 of 2018 registered on the complaint lodged by the 5th respondent Tahsildar (who took charge on 09.01.2017, after the beneficiary list had been prepared and approved). HELD: disciplinary proceedings having already been initiated and a criminal case registered, no further order was required; allegations against the 5th respondent were discounted as beneficiaries were identified before her tenure; official respondents were directed to complete the pending enquiry and recover any recoverable amounts without further delay. Writ petition closed; no costs.

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.03.2026

¶2

CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

¶4

W.P.(MD)No.1986 of 2020

V.Kanikumar

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Home Secretary The Secretariat St. George Fort Chennai

¶9

2.The Director General of Police O/o.The Director General of Police Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai Chenani

¶10

3.The District Collector Dindigul District

¶11

4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police Dept. of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Plot NO. 576/4 EB Colony Chettinayakanpatti Trichy Bye pass Road Dindigul-4

¶12

5.Nirmalagracy Thasildar Nilakottai Dindigul District

¶13

1/8

¶14

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

¶15

6.Murugan Village Administrative Officer Chevuganpatti and Sengatampatti Nilakottai Tk. Dindigul District

¶16

7.Manikandan Village Administrative Officer Nadukottai Chakkarapatti and Viralimayanpatti Nilakottai Tk. Dindigul District

¶17

8.Deivendran Village Administrative Officer Sandaiyur Rengappanaikanpatti Nilakottai Tk. Dindigul District

¶18

9.Sathya Village Administrative Officer Kombaipatti Nilakottai Tk. Dindigul District

¶19

10.Jeyalakshmi Village Administrative Officer Malayakondanpatti Nilakottai Tk. Dindigul District

¶20

11.Nawas Sherif Village Administrative Officer Kanavaipatti Village Nilakottai Tk. Dindigul District

¶21

12.Pandeeswaran Village Assistant Bathlagundu Nilakottai Tk. Dindigul Dt.

¶22

13.Eugine Special Tahsildar Disaster Management Dindigul District

¶23

... Respondents

¶24

2/8

¶25

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

¶26

PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents No.1 and 4 to initiate disciplinary and other criminal proceedings against the respondents no.5 to 13 as per the enquiry conducted by the 3rd respondent through his proceedings in Na.Ka.777/2017/EE1 and to file a status report within a time as stipulated fixed by this Court.

¶27

For Petitioner : Mr.C.T.Perumal For R1 & R3 : Mr.J.Ashok, Additional Government Pleader For R2 & R4 : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi, Government Advocate For R5 : Mr.M.Titus For R6 to R11 : No Appearance.

¶28

ORDER

¶29

(Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)

¶30

This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the first and fourth respondents to initiate disciplinary and other criminal proceedings against the respondents no.5 to 13 as per the enquiry conducted by the 3rd respondent through his proceedings in Na.Ka. 777/2017/EE1 and to file a status report within a time frame.

¶31

3/8

¶32

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

¶33

2.The grievance of the petitioner is that the Government sanctioned drought relief fund for the agriculturists during 2016-2017. However, the same has not been disbursed to the eligible farmers in Nilakottai Taluk and all the amount has been misappropriated by the private respondents herein. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking disciplinary proceedings as against the private respondents.

¶34

3.A status report has been filed by the third respondent/District Collector, Dindigul District stating that a sum of Rs.112 Coroe was allotted to the Dindigul District and thereafter, it was re-allotted to all the Taluks. It is further stated that initially when certain complaints received from the farmers of Nilakottai Taluk on the ground that the input subsidy was not properly credited into their accounts and there is rampant misappropriation of the subsidy by some revenue officials in the Taluk of Nilakottai. Therefore, the then Special District Revenue Officer(NH), Dindigul had been instructed to verify the veracity of the complaints and to submit a detailed report in this regard. Based on the report dated 29.06.2018, it is found that some of the Village Administrative Officers, Village Assistants and also a temporary Junior Assistant in the Taluk of

¶35

4/8

¶36

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

¶37

Nilakottai have involved in such act and thereafter, a recommendation had also been made to form a Special Team of Deputy Collectors to identify the misappropriation in an accurate manner. After taking disciplinary proceedings against the Village Administrative Officer, who is the sixth respondent herein, he was placed under suspension. Since he involved in improper credit, punishment of stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect was imposed on him. It is further stated that one Mr.Vijayaraja, Village Assistant was placed under suspension as early as on 11.11.2017 and a sum of Rs.20,971/- was recovered and remitted to the Government Account and punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect was also imposed on him. More over, an action has also been initiated as against the 12^th respondent/Village Assistant by removing him from service and it is also identified that a sum of Rs.4,37,510/- as misappropriation and necessary revenue recovery proceedings has also been initiated. The temporary employees have also been terminated from the Office.

¶38

4.The learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent has

¶39

filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner is the close friend of the 12^th respondent. Though there was some misappropriation of fund by

¶40

5/8

¶41

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

¶42

the 12

¶43

the 12^th respondent and one Jeyarajan, Computer Operator, the list of beneficiaries was prepared by the then Tashildar and the same was approved by the higher officials, before the fifth respondent taking charge of the Taluk Office. According to her, she took charge of the Taluk office as Tahsildar on 09.01.2017 and she only lodged a criminal complaint with regard to the misappropriation, which resulted in registration of a case in Cr.No.3 of 2018.

¶44

5.We have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the records carefully.

¶45

6.A perusal of the status report filed by the third respondent/District Collector, Dindigul reveals that disciplinary proceedings has already been initiated as against the erred officials and the 12^th respondent has also been removed from the service. Though certain allegations have been made as against the fifth respondent, she joined the office only in the year 2017. Prior to that, the beneficiaries were identified. Since action has already been taken and a criminal case has also been registered in Cr.No.3 of 2018, no further order is required. However, the official respondents are directed to complete the pending

¶46

6/8

¶47

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

¶48

enquiry and if any amount is recovered, the same shall be recovered without any further delay. Accordingly, this writ petition is closed. No

¶49

costs.

¶50

[N.S.K., J.] & [M.J.R., J.] 10.03.2026

¶51

Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No GNS To 1.The Home Secretary The Secretariat St. George Fort Chennai 2.The Director General of Police O/o.The Director General of Police Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai Chenani

¶52

3.The District Collector Dindigul District

¶53

4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police Dept. of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Plot NO. 576/4 EB Colony Chettinayakanpatti Trichy Bye pass Road Dindigul-4

¶54

7/8

¶55

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

¶56

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J. AND M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

¶57

GNS

¶58

W.P.(MD)No.1986 of 2020

¶59

10.03.2026

¶60

8/8

¶61

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

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Petitioner filed this writ petition under Article 226 seeking a direction to respondents 1 and 4 to initiate disciplinary and criminal proceedings against respondents 5 to 13 as per the third respondent's enquiry in Na.Ka. 777/2017/EE1 and to file a status report within a time frame.¶30
Prior proceeding
Grievance: drought relief fund sanctioned by the Government for agriculturists during 2016-2017 was allegedly not disbursed to eligible farmers in Nilakottai Taluk and was misappropriated by the private respondents.¶33
Prior proceeding
Status report filed by the third respondent/District Collector: Rs.112 crore (printed 'Rs.112 Coroe') allotted to Dindigul District and re-allotted to all Taluks.¶34
Prior proceeding
Following farmer complaints of improper crediting of input subsidy, the then Special District Revenue Officer (NH), Dindigul was instructed to verify the complaints and submit a detailed report.¶34
Prior proceeding
Report dated 29.06.2018 found certain Village Administrative Officers, Village Assistants and a temporary Junior Assistant of Nilakottai Taluk involved; recommendation made to form a Special Team of Deputy Collectors.¶34
Prior proceeding
Disciplinary proceedings against the sixth respondent (Village Administrative Officer): placed under suspension; punishment of stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect for improper credit.¶37
Prior proceeding
One Mr.Vijayaraja, Village Assistant, suspended on 11.11.2017; Rs.20,971/- recovered and remitted to the Government Account; punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect imposed.¶37
Prior proceeding
Action against the twelfth respondent/Village Assistant: removed from service; Rs.4,37,510/- identified as misappropriation; revenue recovery proceedings initiated.¶37
Prior proceeding
Temporary employees terminated from the office.¶37
Prior proceeding
Fifth respondent (Tahsildar, in charge from 09.01.2017) lodged the criminal complaint regarding the misappropriation, resulting in registration of a case in Cr.No.3 of 2018.¶43
Prior proceeding
Per the fifth respondent's counter affidavit, the beneficiary list was prepared by the then Tashildar and approved by higher officials before she took charge of the Taluk Office.¶43
Prior proceeding
Fifth respondent's counter affidavit alleged that the petitioner is a close friend of the twelfth respondent.¶39

V.Kanikumar v. The Home Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Kanikumar v. The Home Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Managing Director Vs R. Kannan

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs S. Shakila Banu

P.Subbiah Vs the Chief Controller of

Mohamed Farook Vs The Executive Engineer (Electrical)

M/s. Bajaj Housing Finance Limited Vs Ganesan R

V.Sharmila Vs The District Collector / Inspector of Panchayat