K.Ramesh v. The Director Of Land Reforms / Urban Land Ceiling

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 06.08.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN K.Ramesh ... Petitioner Vs.

The Director of Land Reforms/Urban Land Ceiling and Urban Land Tax, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.

... Respondent Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking for an issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned charge memo dated 22.05.2025 bearing Na.Ka.No.4535/2024/A2 on the file of the respondent and quash the same as being illegal and unlawful.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Raghuman For Respondent : Mr.R.U.Dinesh Rajkumar Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

2.

The writ petition is filed challenging the charge memorandum dated 22.05.2025, issue in proceedings No.Na.Ka.No.4535/2024/A2, on the file of the respondent and quash the same.

3.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that based upon the charge memorandum dated 22.05.2025, the respondent has appointed an Enquiry Officer viz., R.Nagalakshmi, who is junior to the petitioner and against the said Enquiry Officer, the petitioner has made a complaint. His further submission is that, if the said Enquiry Officer proceed with the enquiry, then it would cause prejudice to the petitioner. 4.

At this juncture, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would submit that, the impugned charge memorandum was issued only under 17(a) of the Discipline and Appeal Rules and not under 17(b) and they are not contemplating any departmental

enquiry by appointing an Enquiry Officer, as it comes under Section 17(a) of the Discipline and Appeal Rules. He would further submit that, according to Section 17(a) of the Discipline and Appeal Rules, they are competent to pass order based upon the explanation given by the petitioner. 5.

I have given my anxious consideration to the submission of the learned Counsel on either side.

6.

In view of the submission made by the learned Additional Government Pleader, this Court is of the view that, the apprehension raised by the petitioner is without any basis. Therefore, recording the submission of the learned Additional Government Pleader, the instant Writ Petition is closed. No costs.

06.08.2025 veda Index:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order To The Director of Land Reforms/Urban Land Ceiling and Urban Land Tax, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

veda W.P.No.29106 of 2025 06.08.2025