Madras High Court
The Additional Chief Secretary vs P. Kubendran on 10 March, 2025
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
W.A.No.689 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G. ARUL MURUGAN
W.A.No. 689 of 2025
and CMP No.5707 of 2025
1. The Additional Chief Secretary
to the Government of Tamil Nadu,
Municipal Administration and
Water Supply Department,
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Director of Municipal Administration,
No.75, Santhome High Road,
Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai 600 028. ...Appellants
Vs.
P. Kubendran ...Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside
the order passed in WP No.11937 of 2022 dated 12.01.2023.
For Appellant : Mr.C.Selvaraj
Additional Government Pleader
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 11:20:47 am )
W.A.No.689 of 2025
For Respondent : Mr.P.K. Ganesh
*****
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)
We see no merit in the Appeal. The Writ Court has quashed the
impugned charge memo on the ground that a charge which was originally
issued under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline &
Appeal) Rules, 1955 has been altered as one under Rule 17(b) after a lapse
of nearly 13 years.
2. The respondent, who was working as Assistant Commissioner, was
charge sheeted for certain delinquencies which happened in the year 2001.
The initial charge memo was issued on 29.08.2009 under Rule 17(a) of the
Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955. The
respondent also submitted his explanation. There were no further
proceedings. However, when the respondent made a representation on
21.01.2022 seeking promotion, he was visited with a memorandum of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 11:20:47 am )
charges containing the same charges, as were issued on 29.08.2009 except
that the charges this time were under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil
Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955 which is meant for the
imposition of major punishment.
3. The Writ Court had quashed the charge memo on the ground of
delay as well as on the ground that charges made under 17(a) of the Tamil
Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955 cannot be converted
into charges under 17(b). The Writ Court has also relied upon the judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.V.Mahadevan vs. Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board, reported in 2005 (6) SCC 636, wherein the
inordinate delay in completing the disciplinary proceedings would be a
ground to quash the disciplinary proceedings. It is also found that the
respondent has already retired from service.
4. The facts are not in dispute. This court and the Hon’ble Supreme
Court have time and again reiterated the need for completing Disciplinary
proceedings within a reasonable time. Launching of disciplinary proceedings
when the employee is due for retirement has also been deprecated. Hence,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 11:20:47 am )
we see no reason to interfere with the order of the Writ Court, the Writ
Appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to
costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.) (G. ARUL MURUGAN, J.)
10.03.2025
jv
Index : No
Neutral Citation : No
Speaking order
To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary
to the Government of Tamil Nadu,
Municipal Administration and
Water Supply Department,
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Director of Municipal Administration,
No.75, Santhome High Road,
Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai 600 028.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 11:20:47 am )
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
G. ARUL MURUGAN, J.
jv
10.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 11:20:47 am )
