S. Karpagam v. The Tamil Nadu State Information Commission

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.02.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN and C.M.P.(MD)No.1075 of 2026 S.Karpagam ... Appellant Vs.

1.The Tamil Nadu State Information Commission, Represented by the Assistant Registrar, Block No.19, Government Farm Village, Pernpet, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035.

2.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Registration Department, Ramanathapuram Zone, Vandikkara Street, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

3.Venkataraman Parthasarathy 4.Balaji ... Respondents PRAYER:- Writ Appeal - filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside the order in W.P.(MD)No.29346 of 2025 dated 10.12.2025 on the file of this Court.

1/5

For Appellant : Mr.P.Prabakaran For Respondents : Mr.A.Kannan (R2) Additional Government Pleader

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.) Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition with the following observations, this writ appeal has been filed: "5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and since the departmental proceedings have already been initiated and are underway, this Court is of the view that the petitioner can raise all his contentions during the course of the inquiry. Questions of fact, such as whether the petitioner was responsible for not furnishing the information or any other defense taken by the petitioner, can only be determined during the inquiry proceedings. In view of the same, no prima facie error is found in the impugned order."

2.The learned counsel for the writ petitioner/appellant submits that at the relevant point of time, the appellant was not the Public Information Officer and therefore, the order issued by the Chief 2/5

Information Commissioner to initiate departmental proceedings as against the appellant, is liable to be quashed. However, the learned Single Judge on considering the submission, has held that since departmental proceedings has already been initiated, the writ petitioner has to seek redressal, by participating in the departmental proceedings. 3.The learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submits that so far, no departmental proceedings has been initiated. 4.We find that the communication of the Chief Information Commissioner to the Deputy Inspector General of registration to initiate departmental proceeding against the writ petitioner for the alleged dereliction of duty, is the commencement of the proceedings.

The appellant being not only a staff in the Registration Department, but also being an Information Officer, it is for her to make her submission as to whether at the relevant point of time she was the Information Officer or not, in the course of the departmental proceedings. These material facts can be tested only in the course of departmental proceedings. This Court cannot examine the factual aspects.

3/5

5.Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

[G.J., J.] & [K.K.R.K., J.] 09.02.2026 Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes ta To The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Registration Department, Ramanathapuram Zone, Vandikkara Street, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

4/5

DR.

G. JAYACHANDRAN , J.

AND K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

ta 09.02.2026 5/5