G.Kandan v. The Director

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 05.11.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN G.Kandan ... Petitioner -Vs1. The Director, General Health and Preventive Diseases, Health Centre, Chennai 600006.

2. The Deputy Director, Health Centre Office, Thindal, Erode 638012.

3. Revenue Divisional Officer, Collectorate Office, Kancheepuram.

4. T.A.Premakumari ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent herein to

consider the legal notice cum representation dated 13.09.2025 and to conduct disciplinary proceedings against the fourth respondent within a time frame as stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Mukunth, Senior Counsel for Mr.H.Shabeer Ali For R1 to R3 : Mr.M.Bindran Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed for direction directing the first respondent herein to consider the legal notice cum representation dated 13.09.2025 and to conduct disciplinary proceedings against the fourth respondent.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3 and perused the materials available on record.

3. It is seen that the petitioner had already filed a writ petition in

W.P.No.22546 of 2023 challenging the community certificate of the fourth respondent. This Court, by an order dated 13.03.2025 directed the third respondent herein to conduct enquiry. The third respondent had conducted enquiry and the during the enquiry, the fourth respondent failed to produce the community certificate. It was further concluded that the fourth respondent belonged to Jain community. Now, the fourth respondent had retired from service from the Health Department.

4. Therefore, the petitioner is no way connected with the fourth respondent and he belongs to different community. Though the enquiry conducted by the third respondent reveals that the fourth respondent belongs to Jain community, it is not known under which category she was appointed to the post or under which category she availed the benefits. In fact, the petitioner is not aware of the post in which the fourth respondent had served in the Health Department. Therefore, the petitioner has absolutely no locus standi to seek

initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the fourth respondent.

5. Admittedly, the fourth respondent had retired from service. If any irregularity committed by the fourth respondent, the concerned Department has to take proper action against the fourth respondent in the manner known to law.

6. In view of the above, the representation submitted by the petitioner cannot be considered. and the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. 05.11.2025 Internet: Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order mn G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J, mn

To

1. The Director, General Health and Preventive Diseases, Health Centre, Chennai 600006.

2. The Deputy Director, Health Centre Office, Thindal, Erode 638012.

3. Revenue Divisional Officer, Collectorate Office, Kancheepuram.

05.11.2025