A.Govindasamy v. The Secretary To The Government

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 13.11.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN A.Govindasamy ... Petitioner Vs.

1.THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY DEPARTMENT, FORT ST. GORGE, SECRETARIAT, CHENNAI - 600 009.

2.THE DIRECTOR, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY DEPARTMENT, TEYNAMPET, CHENNAI. 3.THE ZONAL JOINT DIRECTOR, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY DEPARTMENT, KANCHIPURAM DISTRICT.

... Respondents PRAYER:

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to Call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 3rd respondent in Na.Ka.No. 5222/B/2021 dated 26.02.2024 and quash the same is totally illegal, improper, unreasonable, arbitrary and principles of natural justice and thereby direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service, with effect from 18.04.2003 with all consequential monetary and other service 1/6

benefits.

For Petitioner : Mr.Perambur E Palani For Respondents : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan, Special Government Pleader

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 26.02.2024 passed by the third respondent thereby rejecting the representation submitted by the petitioner seeking cancellation of order of dismissal from service and reinstating him into service. 2.

The petitioner was appointed as Night Watchman on compassionate ground in the year 1984. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Live Stock Inspector Grade-II in the Animal Husbandry Department. While being so, the petitioner was served with charge memo alleging that the petitioner produced fake SSLC certificate for the post of Live Stock Inspector Grade-II. After due enquiry, all the charges were proved against the petitioner and the petitioner was dismissed from service by order dated 18.04.2003. It was challenged before this Court in WP.No.21095 of 2006. This court, by order dated 22.08.2008, dismissed 2/6

the writ petition by detailed order confirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority since the dismissal order was passed on the basis of the material evidences as well as the findings of the enquiry officer. In the absence of any perversity in the conclusion arrived at by the enquiry officer or the disciplinary authority, there is no reason to interfere with the ultimate decision of the disciplinary authority. Further it is not permissible for this court to interfere with the decision of the disciplinary authority which was taken consciously in the interest of the institution. Once again, the petitioner challenged the order of dismissal by way of writ petition in WP.No.6104 of 2020. It was dismissed as withdrawn.

Thereafter, the petitioner cleverly submitted representation to reinstate him into service by cancelling the order of dismissal. This court in WP.No.29751 of 2023, without expressing any opinion, directed to consider the representation. However, by the impugned order dated 26.02.2024, the petitioner's request has been rejected. Therefore, the petitioner keeps on challenging the order of dismissal by one way or other, which is not permissible in law. Hence, the representation submitted by the petitioner was rightly rejected and this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order .

3.

In view of the above discussion, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 13.11.2025 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order lok 4/6

To 1.THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY DEPARTMENT, FORT ST. GORGE, SECRETARIAT, CHENNAI - 600 009.

2.THE DIRECTOR, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY DEPARTMENT, TEYNAMPET, CHENNAI. 3.THE ZONAL JOINT DIRECTOR, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY DEPARTMENT, KANCHIPURAM DISTRICT.

5/6

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

lok 13.11.2025 6/6