[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Karthick vs The Chairman on 18 February, 2026
Author: R.Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
W.A.No.385 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.02.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED
W.A.No.385 of 2026
and
C.M.P.No.3513 of 2026
Karthick ... Appellant
-Vs-
1. The Chairman,
Arangavalarkuzhu (Board of Trustees),
Sri Kalikambal Devasthanam,
Thambu Chetty Street,
George Town,
Chennai – 600 001.
2. The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 034. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, against the order
dated 19.11.2025 in W.P.No.43647 of 2025.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 04:33:24 pm )
W.A.No.385 of 2026
For Appellant : Mr.R.Singaravelan, Senior Counsel
for Mr.V.S.Jagadeesan
For Respondents : Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan
Special Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)
This intra-Court appeal has been directed against the order dated
19.11.2025 made in W.P.No.43647 of 2025.
2.The appellant was the writ petitioner, who was working as Archakar
Grade-II in the first respondent Temple which is under the control of Hindu
Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. While that being so, there
has been a criminal case registered against the appellant / petitioner for the
alleged offences punishable under Sections 417, 354A, 294(b), 312, 506(i) IPC
and 67A of Information Technology Act, 2000. Subsequently, FIR has been
altered by deleting Section 354A IPC and substituting Section 376(1) IPC.
3. Pursuant to the said registration of FIR in Crime No.15 of 2024 on the
file of All Women Police Station, Virugambakkam, the appellant / petitioner was
suspended, by order dated 15.05.2024 passed by the first respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 04:33:24 pm )
Devasthanam, pursuant to the resolution passed in this regard to keep him under
suspension till the completion of the criminal trial.
4. As there has been a prolonged suspension with effect from 15.05.2024,
having waited for more than a year, the appellant / petitioner had approached the
writ Court by filing the said writ petition to quash the suspension order dated
15.05.2024.
5. The writ Court having considered the factual matrix was not inclined to
interfere with the suspension order stating that since there has been FIR filed
against him for serious allegations and therefore, since the same is pending trial
or investigation, it cannot be interfered with the suspension order and no
certiorari can be issued, was the answer given by the writ Court through the
impugned order dated 19.11.2025.
6. Aggrieved over the said order, the present intra-Court appeal since has
been filed, Mr.R.Singaravelan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellant / petitioner would contend that, as per Rule which is in vouge, the
suspension order passed by the authority concerned is subjected to review
periodically within a period of six months or every six months. No such review
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 04:33:24 pm )
since has been made and the very suspension order since has been issued as if
that it would be forever till the completion of the trial by the criminal Court that
would go or run contra to the Rules, namely, Tamil Nadu Civil Services
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, by Rule No.17(e)(6), therefore, the learned
Senior Counsel seeks indulgence of this Court against the order passed by the
writ Court.
7. On the other hand, Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, learned Special
Government Pleader appearing for the respondent HR&CE Department has
pointed out that, the first respondent or the Board of Trustees are empowered to
inflict any punishment including placing every staff under suspension and if any
fine is imposed or suspended or removed or dismissed, the staff may prefer an
appeal to HR&CE Department, i.e., Joint Commissioner or Deputy
Commissioner as the case may be under Sub-section 2 of Section 56 of the
Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘HR&CE Act’). Therefore, the learned Special Government
Pleader would submit that, as of now, the Department does not have any role
unless the appellant / petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of
suspension construing it as one of the suspension within the meaning of
Section 56 of HR&CE Act and if any such appeal is preferred under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 04:33:24 pm )
Sub-section 2 of Section 56, that would be considered on merits and orders
would be passed by the Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner as the
case may be, he contended.
8. Having considered the said submissions made by the learned counsel
appearing for both sides and after having perused the materials placed before
this Court, especially, in the context of the legal position, we are inclined to
dispose of this writ appeal with the following orders:
(i) that the order impugned before the writ Court dated
15.05.2024 placing the appellant / petitioner under suspension
can only be agitated by way of appeal before HR&CE
Department, i.e., Deputy Commissioner or Joint Commissioner
as the case may be within the meaning of Sub-section 2 of
Section 56 of HR&CE Act. When that being the position, it is
open to the appellant / petitioner to prefer such an appeal if he is
advised to do so to the Joint Commissioner or Deputy
Commissioner, i.e., second respondent against the order of
suspension dated 15.05.2024 and if any such appeal is filed, the
same shall be considered and decided on merits and in
accordance with law as early as possible uninfluenced by any of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 04:33:24 pm )
the observations that have been made by the writ Court through
the impugned order dated 19.11.2025 made in W.P.No.43647 of
2025 within a reasonable time.
(ii) The limitation period of one month to prefer an appeal
within the meaning of Sub-section 2 of Section 56 shall not stand
in the way in case if the appellant / petitioner prefers an appeal
within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy
of this judgment.
9. With these directions, this Writ Appeal is accordingly ordered.
However, there shall be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition
is closed.
(R.S.K., J.) ( S.S.A., J.)
18.02.2026
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
vji
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 04:33:24 pm )
To
1. The Chairman,
Arangavalarkuzhu (Board of Trustees),
Sri Kalikambal Devasthanam,
Thambu Chetty Street,
George Town,
Chennai – 600 001.
2. The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 034.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 04:33:24 pm )
R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
and
SHAMIM AHMED, J.
vji
and
18.02.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 04:33:24 pm )
