Madras High Court
WA/385/2024 of A.NARESH SIVA Vs THE COMMISSIONER on 8 September 2026
W.A.NO.385 OF 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.09.2026
CORAM
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN
W.A.NO.385 OF 2024
AND
CMP NO.2571 OF 2024
A.Naresh Siva
…
Appellant
Vs.
1.The Commissioner
Vellore Corporation
Vellore.
2.The Assistant Commissioner
Zone – IV,
Vellore Corporation
Vellore.
…
Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to set aside the order dated 06.11.2023 passed in W.P.No.13473
of 2020.
For Appellant
:
Mr.Sam Dinakaran Manuel
for Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan
For Respondents
:
Ms.Sadhana Madhavan
for Mr.P.S.Prabu
W.A.NO.385 OF 2024
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.
J U D G M E N T
(Judgment of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam, J.) The writ order dated 06.11.2023 passed in W.P.No.13473 of 2020 is under challenge. The writ petitioner is the appellant herein.
2. The appellant was appointed as a part-time worker in Ariyur Village Panchayat to maintain the street lights in the year 2006. The appellant was subsequently absorbed as Work Inspector on consolidated pay in Vellore Corporation. Thereafter, the part-time workers were converted as Full-Time Workers. Audit has raised an objection for absorption of the appellant and therefore, the appellant was engaged as Consolidated Pay employee. The impugned order in the writ petition has been passed based on the report submitted by the respondents. The appellant has not challenged the order of termination initially issued against him. The writ court considered the gravity of the charges levelled against the appellant, who was serving as a Consolidated Pay employee, found that the order of termination had remained unchallenged. More so, the writ petition has been instituted merely challenging the reply given by the Authorities in response to the report submitted by the respondents.
W.A.NO.385 OF 2024
While dismissing the writ petition, the writ Court made the following finding in paragraph no.5 of its order: “5.The allegations against the petitioner are very serious in nature and the fraud committed in tampering the records to appear as though the petitioner and some others were appointed has been found out during the audit. As submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner the petitioner has not come with any termination order and the impugned order has been passed only on the representations made by the petitioner seeking reinstatement. When the alleged initial appointment itself is called as fraudulent, the second respondent cannot be expected to reinstate the petitioner or in other words, the second respondent cannot be expected to re-engage the person who he had not engaged in the first instance. The petitioner has not come to Court with clean hands. Hence this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.”
W.A.NO.385 OF 2024
3. In view of the above factum, the appellant has not established any further ground to re-consider the writ order impugned. Consequently, the writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. [S.M.S., J.] [K.G.R., J.]
08.09.2026 Index : Yes Speaking Order : Yes Neutral Citation : Yes / No TK To
1. The Commissioner Vellore Corporation Vellore.
2. The Assistant Commissioner Zone – IV, Vellore Corporation Vellore.
W.A.NO.385 OF 2024
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J. TK W.A.NO.385 OF 2024 08.09.2026