Madras High Court
S.Selvanagarathinam vs The Disciplinary Authority on 5 November, 2025
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
W.P.No.12528 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 05.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR . JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
W.P.No.12528 of 2024
&
W.M.P.Nos.13679 of 2024 & 9264 of 2025
S.Selvanagarathinam ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Disciplinary Authority
Represented by
The Additional Chief Secretary to Government
Home (SC) Department
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009
2. The Director General of Police
(Law and Order)
Post Box No.601
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai
Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004
3. Additional Director General of Police (CB-CID)
No.24, Pantheon Road
Egmore – 600 008
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 04:30:47 pm )
W.P.No.12528 of 2024
4. The Additional Deputy Superintendent of Police
Special Investigation Division
Crime Branch CID
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008
5. Ms.Maheswari
Special Investigation Division
Crime Branch CID
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008 ...Respondents
Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the impugned order
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench dated
08.04.2024 in O.A.No.225 of 2023 and set aside the part of the impugned
order giving liberty to the respondents to take further action against the
petitioner as per rules on the basis of the complaint/report received against
the petitioner by issuing a fresh charge memo.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Prakash
Senior counsel
for Ms.K.Jayasudha
For Respondents : Mr.Haja Nazirudeen
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by
Mr.K.H.Ravikumar
Government Advocate for R1 to R4
2/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 04:30:47 pm )
W.P.No.12528 of 2024
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench dated 08.04.2024 in O.A.No.225 of
2023.
2. The Central Administrative Tribunal, while quashing the charge
memo, granted liberty to the authority to take further action as per rules on
the basis of the complaint / report received against the petitioner, by issuing
a fresh charge memo.
3. Mr.Haja Nazirudeen, learned Additional Advocate General
submitted that now a fresh charge memo has been issued and the enquiry
has commenced.
4. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner drew the
attention of this Court to Paragraphs 13 and 14 of a judgment of a Division
Bench of Gujarat High Court in Maheshbhai Bhurjibhai Damor Vs. State
of Gujarat and Ors report in MANU/GJ/0703/2022 and contended that the
alleged relationship is no way connected with the service of the petitioner,
there was a mutual relationship between the parties and the same will not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 04:30:47 pm )
come within the ambit of misconduct. For better appreciation, paragraphs 13
and 14 of Maheshbhai Bhurjibhai Damor case is extracted hereunder:
'13. The facts of the present case are to the effect that on
2.11.2012 and 3.11.2012, at the instance of the lady, the
petitioner during the night hours, visited her quarter where she
was staying and were having intimate moments, which were
caught in the CCTV camera installed. The incident led to filing
of a complaint dated 7.12.2012 by the brother-in-law of the lady
to the respondent no. 3, inter alia, stating that the petitioner
had developed illicit relationship with a lady and has exploited
her and has committed misconduct of moral turpitude, which is
punishable. After the complaint was submitted to the respondent
no. 3 - Police Commissioner, statements of the petitioner, the
lady and mother-in-law of the lady were recorded by the
respondents and ultimately, it led to issuance of the show cause
notice dated 10.10.2013. It has been alleged in the notice that
the petitioner despite being married by committing such act has
brought disrepute to the police department. It is further alleged
that the petitioner has exploited woman instead of providing
security and such act cannot be taken lightly. The notice further
records that considering the incident in question, it is likely that
during the inquiry proceedings, embarrassing position may
arise and therefore, it would not be proper to conduct the
inquiry under the Rules. The authority, in exercise of powers
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 04:30:47 pm )
under sub-clause (b) of second proviso of clause (2) of Article
311 of the Constitution, dispensed with the inquiry and called
upon the petitioner to respond as to why he should not be
dismissed from service for commission of such a serious
offence.
14. Pertinently, the edifice on which the notice has been
issued is exploitation of widow and hence, moral turpitude. As
the record reveals, the relation between the petitioner and the
lady was mutual. The said fact is strengthened by the statement
recorded of the lady, wherein she has in no uncertain terms
declared that she has voluntarily entered into the relationship
with the petitioner. Once the relation is voluntary and mutual
between two adults, the observations made by the respondent
no. 4 to the effect that act of woman exploitation cannot be
taken lightly, is erroneous and perverse. The question therefore
arises is that if the relationship between two adults was mutual
and on their own volition, whether the said act could be covered
within the sweep of the term misconduct.
5. Though the very allegation against the petitioner also indicate that
the so called complainant is also a major and there was an affair between the
parties, it is not alleged anyway that only in nexus of the duty, she was
compelled to have relationship.
6. Be that as it may, now the fresh charge memo has been issued and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 04:30:47 pm )
the enquiry has commenced. In such view of the matter, we are not inclined
to stay the further proceedings and liberty is granted to the petitioner to
challenge the charge memo before the Tribunal as per law within a period of
two weeks from today. Till such time, the respondent shall not precipitate
the matter any further.
7. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall
be no order as to costs.
[N.S.K.,J.] [M.J.R.,J.]
05.11.2025
Index: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
gpa
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 04:30:47 pm )
To
1. The Disciplinary Authority
Represented by
The Additional Chief Secretary to Government
Home (SC) Department
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009
2. The Director General of Police
(Law and Order)
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai
Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004
3. Additional Director General of Police (CB-CID)
No.24, Pantheon Road
Egmore – 600 008
4. The Additional Deputy Superintendent of Police
Special Investigation Division
Crime Branch CID
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 04:30:47 pm )
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.,
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.,
gpa
05.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 04:30:47 pm )
