Pandiyarajan U v. The Superintendent Of Prison

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 27.04.2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR and W.M.P(MD)No.9336 & 9338 of 2026 U.Pandiyarajan ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Prison District Prison, Pudukottai District.

2.The Enquiry Officer and Jailor Womens Special Prison, Trichy-8.

... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in No.SPWTR/151/2026/Asst-1 dated 06.04.2026 on the file of the Respondent No.2 and the Consequential Impugned order in No.cp-pdk/701/2025/sj2 dated 10.04.2026 on the file of the respondent No.1 and quash the same as 1/6

illegal and consequently for a direction, directing the Respondent No.1 and 2 to conduct denovo enquiry by providing opportunity to examine and cross examine the witnesses to the charges relating to the criminal case in Crime No.229/2025 on the file of the Sub-Inspector of Police Golden Rock Police Station, Trichy District in accordance with the Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services Discipline and Appeal Rules 1955.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Aswin Raja Simman For Respondents : Mr.S.Shaji Bino, Special Government Pleader

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the report of the Enquiry Officer in the disciplinary proceedings that are initiated against the petitioner and the proceedings communicating the said report of the Enquiry Officer affording an opportunity to the petitioner to raise his objections against the findings recorded in the report of the Enquiry Officer.

2/6

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the report of the Enquiry Officer is totally lacunae and absolutely there is no basis for arriving at such a conclusion and without examining the relevant witnesses, the Enquiry Officer has come to such a conclusion without any basis.

3. He further submitted that the respondents are going to act mechanically basing on the report of the enquiry officer and pass final orders.

4. He also further submitted that though the petitioner specifically sought for cross examination of the Sub Inspector of Police Kamila Banu, Special Sub-Inspector of Police Palanivel, Police Constables Vignesh and Arivalagan, the same was not afforded to the petitioner.

3/6

5. This is the exact stage where the petitioner is entitled to raise all his objections on the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer as well as the manner in which the enquiry was conducted and point out the defects or procedural lapses in the matter of conducting an enquiry. The petitioner herein instead of availing the said opportunity, has rushed to this Court by filing the present writ petition alleging certain violation of the procedure prescribed under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1955.

6. As the impugned proceedings dated 10.04.2026 is only a notice affording an opportunity to the petitioner, it is for the petitioner to raise all his objections before the disciplinary authority and it is not for this Court to entertain the writ petition, while the disciplinary proceedings are pending before the respondents.

7. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, granting two weeks time to the petitioner to submit his response pursuant to the proceedings, dated 10.04.2026. In case, if the petitioner submits any 4/6

such representation within the time stipulated above, the same shall be considered by the disciplinary authority in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 27.04.2026 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No RM To 1.The Superintendent of Prison District Prison, Pudukottai District.

2.The Enquiry Officer and Jailor Womens Special Prison, Trichy-8.

5/6

MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR , J.

RM 27.04.2026 6/6