Rakesh Sharma R v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 07.01.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI R.Rakesh Sharma

...Petitioner

Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai. ...Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of certiorari calling for the records in the order bearing No.Roc.A2/3295/2023, dated 28.04.2023 and the order bearing No.Na.Ka.A2/3295/2023, dated 28.04.2023 passed by the respondent and quashing the same.

For Petitioner : No Representation For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinodh, Government Advocate

ORDER

The petitioner is working as a Village Administrative Officer. He was placed under suspension vide the impugned order by initiating 1/5

disciplinary proceedings under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and he was issued with a charge memo. Challenging the same the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2.This court has entertained this writ petition on 22.04.2024 and ordered notice. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 04.06.2024 there was no representation for the petitioner. The matter was listed on 15.11.2024. Thereafter when the matter was listed on 05.01.2026, there was no representation for the petitioner and therefore, the case was directed to be listed under the caption for dismissal. Accordingly, the case is listed under the caption for dismissal today. Even today there is no representation for the petitioner.

3.The respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner is having connection with Maoists and also involved in a criminal case. Suppressing the same he has obtained the appointment of Village Administrative Officer. Therefore, disciplinary proceedings was initiated by placing him under suspension.

2/5

4.When this court has verified as to the status of the disciplinary proceedings, the learned Additional Government Pleader submits that in view of the pendency of the writ petition, they have not proceeded with the disciplinary proceedings.

5.Verification of the records shows that there is no interim order prohibiting the respondent from proceeding with the disciplinary proceedings. However for the best reasons known to them, they have not proceeded with the enquiry.

6.Since the impugned proceedings is only a charge memo this court is not inclined to interfere with the same in view of the settled position of law. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed with a direction to the respondent to conclude the disciplinary proceedings and pass final orders within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is expected to co-operate for the enquiry. No costs.

07.01.2026 DSK 3/5

To The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai.

4/5

B.PUGALENDHI.J., DSK 07.01.2026 5/5