T.R.Chinnan v. The Principal Accountant General

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 31-07-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN WP No. 27643 of 2025

1. T.R.Chinnan Graduate Teacher And Joint Secretary Tamilaga Aasiriyar Koottani Government Aided Middle School, Karamalai Bazaar Post- 642 130, Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The Principal Accountant General AG's Office (Audit) Complex, No.361, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai- 18.

2.The Director Of Elementary Education, The Office Of The Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai- 600 006.

3.The District Educational Office (Elementary) The District Educational Office, Pollachi- 642 001.

4.The Director Directorate Of Vigilance And Anti Corruption, No.293, M.K.N.Road, Alandur, Chennai-600 016.

5.The Superintendent Of Police Western Range, Vigilance And AntiCorruption, Chennai-600 016. 6.The Deputy Superintendents Of Police Vigilance And Anti- Corruption, No.4, Venkateshwara Nagar,

Koundampalayam, Coimbatore- 641 029.

7.The Secretary / Correspondent/ Manager Karamalai Aided Middle School, Karamalai Schools Committee, Karamalai Bazaar Post- 642 130 Respondent(s) PRAYER Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the 5th and 6th respondents to conduct preliminary enquiry as per para 10 (2) of Vigilance Manual and G.O.Ms NO.173P and AR (N) Department dated 19.12.2018 on the representation dated 09.04.2025 and on 12.05.2025 and proceed with the case in accordance with law and to pass such further or other suitable orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.I.Arokiasamy For Respondent(s): Ms.G.Varthini Karthik, S.C., For R1 Mr.S.Prabhakaran, Govt.Advocate For R2 and R3 Mr.Naveen Kumar Govt. Advocate For R4 To R6 ********

ORDER

The instant writ petition has been filed to direct the 5th and 6th respondents to conduct preliminary enquiry as per para 10 (2) of Vigilance Manual and G.O.Ms NO.173P and AR (N) Department dated 19.12.2018 on the representation dated 09.04.2025 and on 12.05.2025 and proceed with the case in accordance with law.

2. Heard Mr.I.Arokiasamy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms.G.Varthini Karthik, learned Standing counsel for the first respondent, Mr.S.Prabhakaran, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 2 & 3 and Mr.N.Naveen Kumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 4 to 6.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has raised a corruption complaint against the 7th respondent Department. The only grievance of the petitioner is that before forwarding the impugned letter dated 24.04.2025, the Vigilance Department has not conducted any preliminary enquiry. The learned counsel would further submit that in view of the order passed by the learned Single Judge made in WP.(MD).No.2019 of 2022 reported in CDJ 2022 MHC 2098, the preliminary enquiry is mandatory before proceeding further based upon the corruption complaint. It is the further contention of the petitioner that in the case in hand, without conducting any preliminary enquiry, the 5th respondent has forwarded the petitioner's complaint to the 2nd respondent, which according to the petitioner is contrary to law.

4. However, the learned Government Advocate would strongly object the said contention and would submit that the very impugned letter dated 24.04.2025 is a self-explanatory, wherein categorically stated about the scrutiny conducted by them. Therefore, the petitioner cannot have any grievance in the impugned order.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.

6. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner would state that the 5th respondent did not conduct any preliminary enquiry, on perusal of the impugned letter, it appears that the petitioner had conducted a scrutiny and only based upon the scrutiny, they have taken objective opinion that this complaint has to be adjudicated by the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the contention that the 5th respondent did not conduct preliminary enquiry appears to be evidently incorrect in view of the scrutiny made by the 5th respondent, as referred in their letter dated 24.04.2025. Hence, this Court does not find any merits in this writ petition.

7. In the result, this writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

31-07-2025 kmi Index:Yes/No Speaking order Internet:Yes

To 1.The Principal Accountant General Ags Office (audit) Comp,Ex, No.361, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai- 18.

2.The Director Of Elementary Education, The Office Of The Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai- 600 006.

3.The District Educational Office (elementary) The District Educational Office, Pollachi- 642 001.

4.The Director Directorate Of Vigilance And Anti Corruption, No.293, M.K.N.Road, Alandur, Chennai-016.

5.The Superintendent Of Police Western Range, Vigilance And AntiCorruption, Chennai-016. 6.The Deputy Superintendents Of Police Vigilance And Anti- Corruption, No.4, Venkateshwara Nagar, Koundampalayam, Coimbatore- 641 029.

7.The Secretary / Correspondent/ Manager Karamalai Aided Middle School, Karamalai Schools Committee, Karamalai Bazaar Post- 642 130

C.KUMARAPPAN J.

kmi 31-07-2025