[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
M.Suresh vs Additional Chief Secretary on 16 March, 2026
W.P.(MD) No.7523 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 16.03.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
W.P.(MD) No.7523 of 2023
and
W.M.P.(MD) Nos.7019 & 7020 of 2023
M.Suresh ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.Additional Chief Secretary
to Government
Home Department
Secretariat, Chennai-9
2.The Director General of Prisons /
Director General of Prisons and
Correctional Services
Whannels Road
Egmore, Chennai-8
3.The Superintendent
Central Prison
Madurai
4.The Superintendent of Prisons
Virudhunagar
5.Vasantha Kannan ... Respondents
____________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 03:01:00 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.7523 of 2023
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue
a writ of certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the charge memo issued
in No.16907/Ki.Ci.1/2022, dated 21.11.2022, by the third respondent and to
quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen
For Respondents : Mr.Veera Kathiravan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.S.Shaji Bino
Special Government Pleader for R1 to R4
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the charge memo
issued against the petitioner herein.
2. When this writ petition came up for consideration along with
W.P.(MD) Nos.7575 of 2023 & 2819 of 2024 on the earlier occasion i.e., on
11.03.2026, this Court passed the following order:
“These three Writ Petitions have been filed
challenging the charge memo issued against the
petitioner by one Mr.Vasantha Kannan, who is the
then Superintendent of Jails. An identical charge
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 03:01:00 pm )
memo issued against another delinquent employee
was the subject matter of challenge before the
Principal Bench of this Court. The said charge memo
was quashed on the ground of mala fides.
2. Prima facie, it appears that the impugned
charge memo is also liable to be set aside on the very
same ground. However, considering the request of the
learned Special Government Pleader for the
appearance of the learned Additional Advocate
General, list this case on 16.03.2026 finally under the
caption “For Orders”.”
3. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, learned
Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 submitted
that there is no dispute about the mala fide action that was taken by the fifth
respondent while holding the post of the third respondent. But, the same
would not totally absolve the petitioner from the allegations levelled against
him. He also further submitted that initiation of disciplinary proceedings
through the impugned charge memo may not be liable to be quashed, as in
case if there is any such misconduct on the part of the petitioner, he cannot
escape from such liability on the ground of mala fide action on the part of the
fifth respondent while holding the post of the third respondent.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 03:01:00 pm )
4. It is an undisputed fact that the fifth respondent, while holding
the post of the third respondent, has initiated disciplinary proceedings against
three employees by issuing four charge memos, out of which, three charge
memos have been quashed by this Court as well as the Principal Seat on the
ground of malice, and one charge memo is pending against the petitioner
herein.
5. Taking into consideration the same and the mala fide action on
the part of the fifth respondent while holding the post of the third respondent,
this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the impugned
charge memo is liable to be quashed. However, liberty should be granted to
the respondents 1 to 4 to re-initiate disciplinary proceedings, if they deem it
necessary, on the very same charges, which are the subject matter of the
impugned charge memo herein.
6. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner has been reinstated into service through proceedings No.
16907/GC1/2023, dated 28.07.2023, issued by the Superintendent of
Prisons, Central Prison, Madurai-15 and he has been working as such in the
office of the third respondent.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 03:01:00 pm )
7. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned
charge memo is quashed on the ground of mala fides on the part of the fifth
respondent while holding the post of the third respondent. However, it is
made clear that in case the respondents 1 to 4 are of the view that the
charges, which are the subject matter of the impugned charge memo herein, is
of any substance, they are at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance
with law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
16.03.2026
(2/2)
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
krk
To:
1.Additional Chief Secretary
to Government,
Home Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-9.
2.The Director General of Prisons /
Director General of Prisons and
Correctional Services,
Whannels Road,
Egmore, Chennai-8.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 03:01:00 pm )
3.The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Madurai.
4.The Superintendent of Prisons,
Virudhunagar.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 03:01:00 pm )
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.
krk
and
W.M.P.(MD) Nos.7019 & 7020 of 2023
16.03.2026
(2/2)
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 03:01:00 pm )
