T.Maniraj v. The Inspector General Of Registration,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02-06-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA and WMP Nos. 19386 and19390 of 2026 T.Maniraj ..Petitioner(s) Vs
1. The Inspector General Of Registration, O/o. Inspector General of Registration, Chennai-600 028
2. The Assistant General of Registration/Enquiry Officer, O/o. Inspector General of Registration, Chennai Region, Chennai.
3. The District Registrar (Administration), Kallakurichi Registration district Kallakurichi District.
..Respondent(s) PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for
the records pertaining to the impugned order in Charge Memo No.44678/A1/2025-3 dated 08.10.2025 on the file of the 1st respondent and the consequential impugned order in No.44678/B1/2025-3 dated 12.12.2025 on the file of the Respondent No.1 and the consequential impugned Notice in No.138/Ce.C/2025 dated 05.02.2026 on the file of the respondent No.2 and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.T.Asin Rajasimman For Respondent(s):
Mr.A.R.Balaji, Government Advocate for R1 to R3
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the records pertaining to the impugned order in Charge Memo No.44678/A1/2025-3 dated 08.10.2025 and the consequential impugned order in No.44678/B1/2025-3 dated 12.12.2025 on the file of the 1st respondent and the consequential impugned Notice in No.138/Ce.C/2025 dated 05.02.2026 on the file of the 2nd respondent.
2. The petitioner would submit that he is presently working as a Sub Registrar at Vadaponparappi Sub Registrar Office, Kallakurichi District, and is
the General Secretary of the Tamil Nadu Sub Registrar Association. According to the petitioner, in his capacity as General Secretary, he along with other office bearers met the first respondent on 08.10.2025 to place the grievances of the Association members and seek redressal of their pending representations. Without considering or rejecting the claims of the members of the Association, on the very same day, the first respondent had issued a charge memo under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, alleging that the petitioner had met the first respondent to seek revocation of the suspension of one Mr.C.Selvaramachandran, quarrelled with the first respondent, and misused his position as General Secretary of the Association for personal gain.
Denying the allegations as false and baseless, the petitioner contends that he had only represented the grievances of the Association members and had not sought any personal favour. The petitioner would further contend that the impugned charge memo has been issued with a mala fide intention. Reliance is placed upon the Government Circular dated 11.03.1993, the decision in S. Kannan V. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2009) MLJ 217, and the judgment in W.A.(MD) No.1448 of 2021 dated 16.11.2022, to contend that Rule 17(b) can be invoked only in cases involving major misconduct warranting major penalty. During the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the second respondent was appointed as the Enquiry Officer and a consequential notice dated 05.02.2026 was issued directing the petitioner to appear for enquiry on 27.02.2026.
Challenging the charge memo dated 08.10.
consequential enquiry notice dated 05.02.2026 as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to law, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. Heard the learned counsels on either side and perused the materials available on record.
4. The argument of the petitioner is that the charge memo does not make out a case falling under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 and that the allegations were completely false and baseless. That apart, the charges, even if proved, would not warrant a major penalty and therefore the invocation of Rule 17(b) was totally misdirected. However, it is seen that the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation to the charge memo on 22.10.2025. Thereafter on 26.02.2026, the petitioner has submitted a representation wherein he has not sought for quashing of the charge memo but has only sought for keeping the same in abeyance and requested withdrawal of the enquiry officer. The petitioner has gone on to seek three weeks' time to prepare and submit his defence. That being the case, the writ petition now filed to quash the charge memo cannot be sustained. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. However, the concerned authority shall expedite the disciplinary proceedings and dispose of the same as expeditiously as
possible. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
02-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order SRN To
1. The Inspector General Of Registration, O/o. Inspector General of Registration, Chennai-600 028
2. The Assistant General of Registration/Enquiry Officer O/o. Inspector General of Registration, Chennai Region, Chennai
3. The District Registrar (Administration), Kallakurichi Registration District Kallakurichi District.
P.T.ASHA J.
SRN and WMP Nos. 19386 and19390 of 2026 02-06-2026