R.Raghu v. Superintendant Of Prisons

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 22.09.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA & W.M.P.Nos. 39930 & 39931 of 2025 R.Raghu

...Petitioner

Vs.

Superintendent of Prisons, Office of Superintendent of Prisons, Central Jail, Cuddalore.

...Respondent

Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking Writ of Certiorari, calling for records of the impugned charge memo of the respondent in PR.No.26/2025 - CP.CUDD No.1360293/P01/2025 dated 18.08.2025 and the impugned order of suspension of the respondent in No. 1360293/PO.1/2025 dated 20.08.2025 and quash the same.

1/7

For Petitioner :

Mr. M.R.Dhalapathy For Respondent :

Mr. K.Surendran Additional Government Pleader.

ORDER

The Writ Petition has been filed challenging the suspension order dated 20.08.2025.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he is working as a Wireman - Electrician in the respondent office and on 15.08.2025, there was a function conducted in the prison and the audio system did not work properly. The petitioner would submit that the said day, i.e., 15.08.2025 (Independence Day) is a holiday for the petitioner. While so, when the Tamil Thai Vazhthu was played, the audio system did not work properly, due to which there was a delay in the function.

3. Since the audio system did not work properly, the respondent 2/7

had questioned why the petitioner did not come to work on that day and the petitioner argued with them. The petitioner was issued with a charge memo dated 18.08.2025 for not attending the duty on 15.08.2025. Following the same, the impugned suspension order was issued on 20.08.2025. The petitioner had given an explanation to the charge memo. However, it has not been considered. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court.

4. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent would submit that the petitioner is working as a Wireman - Electrician in the Central Prison, Cuddalore. He ought to have been present on 15.08.2025, to ensure that the audio systems are working properly. However, he did not attend duty on 15.08.2025 and due to his negligence, the respondent issued a charge memo and the subsequent suspension order against the petitioner. He would further submit that the petitioner has also argued with them. Ultimately, he seeks for the dismissal of the Writ Petition. 3/7

5. Heard the learned counsel on the either side and perused the records.

6. Having gone through the records, this Court finds that the petitioner has been issued with a charge memo dated 18.08.2025 and pursuant to the same, he has been issued with the impugned suspension order dated 20.08.2025. Though the petitioner had given his reply to the charge memo on 31.08.2025, the same has not been considered.

7. Considering the fact that the petitioner has given his reply on 31.08.2025 and the same has not been considered, the respondent is directed to consider the same, complete the enquiry based on the charge memo dated 18.08.2025 and pass orders on merits, within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observation with regard to the merits of the petitioner's case.

4/7

8. With the above direction and observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.

22.09.2025 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No kan To 5/7

Superintendent of Prisons, Office of Superintendent of Prisons, Central Jail, Cuddalore.

A. D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

6/7

kan 22.09.2025 7/7