Madras High Court
WP(MD)/28699/2025 of S.Indira Gandhi Vs The Inspector General of Reg on 13 October 2026
WP(MD) No. 28699 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 13-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
WP(MD) No. 28699 of 2025
CNR:{HCMD011417052025}
S.Indira Gandhi
Sub Registrar,
O/o Karupayurani Sub Registrar Office,
Madurai (North Registration District),
Now, on Deputation,
sub Registrar Manager (Admin),
Virudhunagar (Registration District)
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Inspector General of Registration Santhome High Road, Chennai 620 028.
2. The Deputy Inspector General of Registrarion Ramanathapuram / Madurai.
3. The District Registrar (Admin),
Karaikudi.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Certiorari call for the records relates to the charge memo in No.46248/V3/2022 dated 08.04.2025
issued by the 1st respondent and quash the same as it is arbitrary and illegal.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr R. Suriya Narayanan
For Respondent(s):
Mr.G.Mohan Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
__________
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 11:32:17 am )
WP(MD) No. 28699 of 2025
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
2
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
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, who is a Sub-Registrar, has been issued with a charge memo dated 08.04.2025, which is challenged in the present Writ Petition.
2. The petitioner has challenged the charge memo on the following grounds:-
(i) The charge memo relates to a document registered in the year 2016, whereas the charge memo was issued by the respondents only in the year 2025.
(ii) The charge memo is not accompanied by any document or witness.
(iii) Considering the nature of the allegations, the charge memo ought to have been issued under Rule 17(a) and not under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.
3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the delinquency in the registration of the document in the year 2016 came to light only recently and, therefore, disciplinary proceedings have been contemplated. By referring to the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ministry of Defence v. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha [(2012) 11 SCC 565] and Chairman, LIC of India and Others v. A.Masilamani [(2013) 6 SCC 530], he submits that the delay alone cannot be a ground for quashing the charge memo and __________
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 11:32:17 am )
WP(MD) No. 28699 of 2025 that the gravity of the offence has to be looked into. He fairly admits that the charge memo has not been accompanied by any documents or list of witnesses. He submits that an annexure to the charge memo dated 08.04.2025 will be issued, listing out the witnesses proposed to be examined during the course of the enquiry, along with the documents sought to be relied upon. Regarding the third ground he submits that, based on the documents and the witnesses presented during the course of the enquiry, the petitioner can raise this objection during the enquiry itself, and it is for the disciplinary authority to decide whether the allegations made against the petitioner warrant action under Rule 17(a) or Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.
4. This Court, considered the rival submissions made and perused the materials placed on record.
5. It is a settled position that the Court should not quash the charge sheet merely on the ground of delay, especially when the offence is serious in nature. The gravity of the offence is an important factor to be considered while deciding whether to quash the charge sheet or not, on the ground of delay. Here, the case on hand relates to registration of forged documents, __________
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 11:32:17 am )
WP(MD) No. 28699 of 2025 which needs to be viewed seriously. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to accede the petitioner's contention.
6. Insofar as the documents and witnesses are concerned, the learned Additional Government Pleader has submitted that the respondents will issue an annexure to the charge memo, listing out the witnesses and the documents proposed to be relied upon during the enquiry.
7. Therefore, the present Writ Petition is closed with a direction to the respondents to furnish the list of witnesses along with the documents to the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today. In the event that any documents are relied upon, copies of the same shall also be furnished to the petitioner. If any documents cannot be furnished to the petitioner, the petitioner shall be permitted to peruse the same. The enquiry proceedings shall be concluded in accordance with the directions issued by the Government in GO.Ms.No.81, Human Resources Management Department, dated 04.08.2022. No costs. 13-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No mbi __________
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 11:32:17 am )
WP(MD) No. 28699 of 2025 To
1. The Inspector General of Registration Santhome High Road, Chennai 620 028.
2. The Deputy Inspector General of Registrarion Ramanathapuram / Madurai.
3. The District Registrar (Admin), Karaikudi. __________
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 11:32:17 am )
WP(MD) No. 28699 of 2025 B.PUGALENDHI, J. mbi WP(MD) No. 28699 of 2025 13-10-2026 __________
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 11:32:17 am )