M.Kannathasan v. The Additional Chief Secretary

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04.12.2025 CORAM :

THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI M.Kannathasan ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Additional Chief Secretary, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai-9.

2.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai-34.

... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the second respondent / Enquiry Officer to complete the enquiry in the charge memo in Na.Ka.No.69669/2023/B1 dated 25.08.2023 based on the petitioner's explanation dated 13.06.2025 within the stipulated time fixed by this Court.

1/6

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Murugesan For Respondents : Mr.J.K.Jeyaseelan, Government Advocate.

ORDER

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the second respondent/enquiry officer to complete the enquiry in the charge memo dated 25.08.2023.

2.The petitioner is facing disciplinary proceedings. Earlier, he has filed a writ petition before this Court in WP.(MD)No.29765 of 2024 questioning the manner in which the charge memo has been issued under Rule 17B of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal)Rules, instead of 17A of the Rule. However, this Court has not accepted the same and dismissed the said petition by its order dated 10.12.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed another writ petition in WP.(MD)No.27170 of 2023 challenging the charge memo. The said writ petition was 2/6

disposed of by this Court with a direction to the enquiry officer to complete the enquiry within a period of four weeks by its order dated 29.04.2024. The petitioner's grievance is that even after the direction of this Court, the enquiry has not been completed. 3.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner, in fact, made a request to change the enquiry officer and therefore, the enquiry officer was changed on 12.11.2024. In this process, there was some delay and in view of that enquiry could not be completed as directed by this Court in WP.(MD)No.27170 of 2023.

4.This Court has considered the submissions made on either side and perused the available records.

5.The charge memo was issued on 25.08.2023. The petitioner, in fact, has filed a writ petition questioning the manner in which the charge memo was issued under Rule 17B of the Rules 3/6

and thereafter, he has filed another writ petition challenging the charge memo. The second writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of on 29.04.2024 with a direction to complete the disciplinary proceedings within a stipulated time. It appears that thereafter the petitioner has made a request to change the enquiry officer and that was also considered by the Department. The enquiry officer has been changed and therefore, this Court is not finding fault with the Department. However, the second respondent is directed to complete the enquiry proceedings, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

04.12.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes gns 4/6

To 1.The Additional Chief Secretary, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai-9.

2.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai-34.

5/6

B.PUGALENDHI,J gns 04.12.2025 6/6