Madras High CourtWP(MD)/23134/2023disposed of

Benittal G v. The District Collector

2025-12-02Honourable Mr Justice B.Pugalendhi6 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 02.12.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI WP(MD)No.23134 of 2023 and WMP(MD)Nos.19322 of 2023 & 24638 of 2025 G.Benittal

...Petitioner

Vs 1.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

2.The District Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

3.The Sub-Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

4.The Revenue Divisional officer, Tirunelveli Revenue Division, Tirunelveli.

5.The Excise Officer, Tirunelveli Division, Tirunelveli.

6.The Tahsildar, Palayamkottai Taluk, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli.

...Respondents

1/6

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records on the file of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents in connection with the impugned charge memo issued by the 4th respondent vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A2/5084/2012 dated 16.11.2013 and the impugned show cause notice issued by the 3rd respondent vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A7/5084/2012, dated 28.10.2020 and the impugned notice for personal enquiry issued by the 2nd respondent vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A1/3363/2017 dated 11.09.2023 and quash all as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu For Respondents : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar, Special Government Pleader

ORDER

The petitioner a Village Administrative Officer is facing disciplinary proceedings. He has filed this writ petition, challenging the charge memo dated 16.11.2013, enquiry report dated 28.10.2020 and the 2nd show cause notice dated 11.09.2023.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings initiated on 16.11.2013 is not yet concluded and the enquiry 2/6

officer has not considered the reply of the petitioner in this enquiry report. Therefore, the petitioner has come with the above prayer. 3.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the earlier punishment imposed as against the petitioner pursuant to the charge memo was set aside that the punishment was imposed without providing opportunity to him and the matter was remitted back. Thereafter a fresh enquiry has been conducted by appointing an enquiry officer and the enquiry officer has also concluded his enquiry and submitted his report in the year 2020. The petitioner has been furnished with the copy of the enquiry report and he has also offered his explanation to the enquiry report. The 2nd show cause notice was issued pursuant to the enquiry report.

4. Considering the rival submissions, this court directs the petitioner to offer his explanation to the notice dated 11.09.2023. Since the proceedings is pending from the year 2013, the disciplinary authority is supposed to take a call within a reasonable time and accordingly, he shall conclude the proceedings within the period of three months from 3/6

the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the petitioner points out the infirmities in the enquiry report, it would be considered by the Disciplinary Authority while deciding the issue. In the event, the petitioner's reply is not properly appreciated by the disciplinary authority, the petitioner is always having the remedy of questioning the orders passed if any, by the disciplinary authority. 5.In view of the above, this court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition on the grounds raised by this petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition.

6.In the result, this writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous are closed. 02.12.2025 DSK 4/6

To 1.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.