Panchamoorthy v. The Commissioner,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 05.06.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.11219, 11220 & 11221 of 2026 Panchamoorthy ... Petitioner -vs1.The Commissioner Endowments Department Uthamar Gandhi Salai Nungampakkam, Chennai 2.The Joint Commissioner Endowments Department Rameswaram Ramanathapuram District 3.Arulmigu Ramanathaswamy Temple rep.through its Thakkar / Joint Commissioner Rameswaram, Ramanathapuram District 4.Chelladurai Joint Commissioner Arulmigu Ramanathaswamy Temple Rameswaram, Ramanathapuram District ... Respondents

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned charge memo / suspension order passed by the third respondent in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.223/2026/A2, dated 06.05.2026 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service. For Petitioner :

Mr.K.Navaneetha Raja For Respondents :

Mr.K.K.Udayakumar Counsel for the Government for R1 & R2 Mr.S.Ramesh for R3

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings bearing Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.223/2026/A2, dated 06.05.2026, issued by the third respondent, whereby the petitioner was placed under suspension on certain charges of misconduct, and also charges were framed requiring the petitioner to explain the same.

2. In response to the charge memo, the petitioner is stated to have already submitted his explanation before the second respondent and the same is yet to be considered. At this stage, the petitioner has approached this Court

by filing the present writ petition making certain allegations against the fourth respondent, who is arrayed as the Joint Commissioner.

3. Mr.S.Ramesh, learned counsel, who takes notice for the third respondent - Temple, submitted that the fourth respondent is the Executive Officer of the third respondent - Temple and he has only submitted a report to the second respondent on certain factual aspects and he is not the authority either to frame charges or to conduct an enquiry.

4. In the light of the above, any mala fides that are attributed against the fourth respondent are of no consequence as the allegation, if any, made by the fourth respondent against the petitioner are not going to be enquired into by the fourth respondent and it is for the second respondent to take a call on those allegations. Hence, this Court is not inclined to take into consideration the allegations that are made against the fourth respondent by the petitioner, as the impugned proceeding is only a charge memo while placing the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry and the second respondent is admittedly the competent authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned proceedings at this stage.

5. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is stated to have already submitted his explanation in response to the impugned charge memo. If that be so, the second respondent is directed to expedite the enquiry process and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case if there is any delay in conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, the order of suspension shall be revived on expiry of three months period of suspension in terms of Paragraph No.11 of the G.O.(Ms) No. 81, Human Resources Management (N) Department, dated 04.08.2022 and pass appropriate orders. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

05.06.2026 NCC :

Yes / No Index :

Yes / No Internet :

Yes / No krk To:

1.The Commissioner, Endowments Department, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungampakkam, Chennai.

2.The Joint Commissioner, Endowments Department, Rameswaram, Ramanathapuram District.

MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.

krk and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.11219, 11220 & 11221 of 2026 05.06.2026