Madras High Court
WP(MD)/21067/2025 of S.Pushpalatha Vs The Secretary to Government on 14 October 2026
WP(MD) No. 21067 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 14-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
WP(MD) No. 21067 of 2025
CNR:{HCMD010922872025}
and WMP(MD)Nos.16293 and 16294 of 2025
S.Pushpalatha
W/o. N.Rajakrishnan,
21-30/1, Koilvilai,
Monikettipottal post,
Kanyakumari District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Secretary to Government
Municipal Administration and Water Supply, St. Fort George, Chennai.
2. The Director
Municipal Administration,
75, Urban Administrative Building,
Santhome High Road,
Rajaannamalaipuram,
Chennai.
3. The Director
Town Panchayat Directorate,
Kurazhagam, Chennai.
4. The Commissioner
Puliyankudi Municipality,
Puliyankudi,Tenkasi District.
5. The Commissioner
Sankarankovil Municipality,
Sankarankovil, Tenkasi District.
..Respondent(s)
WP(MD) No. 21067 of 2025
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records impugned charge memo issued by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No. 27303/2023/PoNi2 dated 12.05.2025 and quash the same as illegal and directed the respondents to relive the petitioner and to disburse all the other service and terminal benefits within the stipulated period.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.S.Chella Pandian
Advocate
For Respondent(s):
Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff,
Special Government Pleader
for R1 to R3
Mr.M.Rajarajan
Advocate for R4
Mr.P.T.Thiraviam,
Advocate for R5
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The petitioner, while serving as a Municipal Engineer, has been issued with the impugned charge memo dated 12.05.2025. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
2. Considering the limited scope of the judicial review on the charge memo and as per the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Kunishetty Satyanarayana reported in (2006) SCC 28, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition.
WP(MD) No. 21067 of 2025
3. If any documents are relied upon by the respondents, the same must be furnished to the petitioner and a fair opportunity must also be provided to her. The petitioner is expected to co-operate for the enquiry.
4. The Government, vide G.O.Ms.No.81, Human Resources Management Department, dated 04.08.2022, issued guidelines, prescribing a time limit for concluding the disciplinary proceedings. In this case, this Court, while ordering notice in the writ petition, has not granted any interim order. Even then, the respondents, for the reasons best known to them, have not proceeded with the disciplinary proceedings.
5. With a hope that the respondents would abide by the conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.81, dated 04.08.2022, this writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the grounds before the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 14-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ogy
WP(MD) No. 21067 of 2025 To
1. The Secretary to Government Municipal Administration and Water Supply, St. Fort George, Chennai.
2. The Director Municipal Administration, 75, Urban Administrative Building, Santhome High Road, Rajaannamalaipuram, Chennai.
3. The Director Town Panchayat Directorate, Kurazhagam, Chennai.
4. The Commissioner Puliyankudi Municipality, Puliyankudi, Tenkasi District.
5. The Commissioner Sankarankovil Municipality, Sankarankovil, Tenkasi District.
WP(MD) No. 21067 of 2025 B.PUGALENDHI, J. ogy WP(MD) No. 21067 of 2025 14-10-2026