Disposed¶41

A.Radhakrishnan, v. the Vigiliance Commissioner

Madras HC3 Mar 2026WP(MD)/9343/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HR&CE Assistant Commissioner alleged financial irregularity and post-transfer continuance at Irrukankudi Mariamman temple; devotee's Article 226 mandamus petition on 14.02.2019 representation; internal audit found no malpractice; censure imposed for delay in handing over charges; report with Joint Commissioner Sivagangai; Court ordered further action per audit report; petition disposed, no costs; W.P.(MD)No.9343 of 2019; decision 03.03.2026; Madurai Bench, Madras High Court; judges N. Sathish Kumar and M. Jothiraman.

What did the court decide?

Direction that further action be taken as per the audit report, the respondent being seized of the matter; writ petition disposed of with no order as to costs. ¶41

A.Radhakrishnan, Vs the Vigiliance Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction that further action be taken as per the audit report, the respondent being seized of the matter; writ petition disposed of with no order as to costs.

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing respondents 1 to 12 to take appropriate action against the 13th respondent (Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department) in accordance with law, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 14.02.2019, concerning her continuance at the 10th respondent temple despite transfer and alleged financial irregularities (cash advances under vouchers Nos. 118, 156 & 297 without proper ledger account) while she was in charge of the Madapuram Adaikalam Katha Ayyanar temple.

¶29

Court's answer

Since the respondent is seized of the matter, further action shall be taken as per the audit report.

¶41

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is disposed of and there shall be no order as to costs.

¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court (Division Bench; order authored by N. Sathish Kumar, J.) disposed of W.P.(MD)No.9343 of 2019, a writ petition under Article 226 filed by a devotee (party-in-person) seeking a mandamus to respondents 1 to 12 (vigilance, secretariat, HR&CE and police officials) to act on his representation dated 14.02.2019 against the 13th respondent, Ms. Rojali Sumatha, an Assistant Commissioner of the HR&CE Department alleged to have continued at Arulmigu Mariamman Temple, Irrukankudi despite transfer, and to have given cash advances (vouchers Nos. 118, 156 & 297 totaling Rs. 4,30,000) without proper ledger accounts while in charge of the Madapuram Adaikalam Katha Ayyanar temple (15.07.2016 to 29.11.2016). The official respondents reported that internal audit found no malpractice regarding the financial irregularity, that censure had been imposed for delay in handing over charges, and that the report lay with the Joint Commissioner, Sivagangai. The Court directed that further action be taken as per the audit report and disposed of the petition without costs.

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED: 03.03.2026

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

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

¶5

W.P.(MD)No.9343 of 2019

¶6

A.Radhakrishnan ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.The Vigiliance Commissioner, Secretariat Chennai-9

¶9

2.The Secretary To Government Personnel And Administrative Reforms Dept. Secretariat Chennai-9

¶10

3.The Secretary To Government Tourism Culture And Endowments Dept. Secretariat Chennai-9

¶11

4.The Commissioner Hindu Religious And Charitable Endowments Dept. 119 Nungambakkam High Road Chennai-34

¶12

5.The Director Vigilance And Anticorruption Dept. Alandur Chennai-16

¶13

6.The Inspector General Of Police Southern Zone Madurai

¶14

1/8

¶15

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

¶16

7.The Joint Commissioner Hindu Religious And Charitable Endowments Dept. Tirunelveli

¶17

8.The Chief Auditing Officer Hindu Religious And Charitable Endowments Dept. 119 Nungambakkam High Road Chennai-34

¶18

9.The Joint Commissioner Hindu Religious And Charitable Endowments Dept. Sivagangai.

¶19

10.The Assistant Commissioner Cum Executive Officer Arulmigu Mariamman Temple Irrukankudi Virudhunagar Dt.

¶20

11.The Assistant Commissioner Cum Executive Officer Arulmigu Badrakaliamman Temple Madapuram Sivagangai Dt.

¶21

12.The Assistant Commissioner Cum Executive Officer Thirumalai Kumaraswamy Temple Ponpoli Sengottai Tk. Tirunelveli Dt

¶22

13.Ms.Rojali Sumatha ... Respondents

¶23

PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 to 12 to take appropriate action as against the 13th respondent in accordance with law, by considering petitioner representation dated 14.02.2019.

¶24

2/8

¶25

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

¶26

For Petitioner	: Mr.A.Radhakrishnan
(Party-in-person)
For R1 to R4
R7 to R9, R11 & R12	: Mr.J.Ashok, Additional Government Pleader
For R5 & R6	: Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi, Government Advocate
For R10	: Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan
For R13	: Mr.M.Saravanan

¶27

ORDER

¶28

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

¶29

This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents 1 to 12 to take appropriate action as against the 13th respondent in accordance with law, by considering petitioner representation dated 14.02.2019.

¶30

2.The petitioner claims that he is a devotee of the 10^th

¶31

respondent temple and used to visit said temple frequently. His allegation in this writ petition is that the 13^th respondent, being Assistant Commissioner of Hindu and Religious & Charitable Endowments

¶32

3/8

¶33

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

¶34

Department, has continued her work in the 10^th respondent temple despite she has been transferred from the said place. While she was in-charge of the Madapuram Adaikalam Katha Ayyanar temple from 15.07.2016 to 29.11.2016, the expenditure had been done by cash and from 17.08.2016 onwards the voucher No.118, 156 & 297, Rs.1,90,000/-, Rs.1,50,000/and Rs.90,000/- has been given as advance amount, for which, there was no proper account on the concerned ledger. The fund, which was allotted for certain scheme, has been utilized even beyond the scheme valuation. Therefore, the petitioner has sent a representation to the official respondents for taking necessary action. Since no action has been taken, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

¶35

3.The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents would submit that internal audit has already been conducted and no malpractice has been noticed as against the 13^th respondent with regard to the financial irregularity. However, for delay in handing over charges, departmental enquiry has already been completed and the punishment of censure has been passed as against the 13^th respondent. Further, the report has been submitted to the Joint Commissioner, Sivagangai and they will act as per the audit report.

¶36

4/8

¶37

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

¶38

4.We have paid our anxious consideration to the submissions

¶39

made on either side and perused the records carefully.

¶40

5.Since the respondent seized of the matter, let the further

¶41

action be taken as per the audit report. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.