WP/49930/2025 of A. VIJAY ANAND Vs The Registral General on 27 August 2026

COMMON ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) The writ petitioner was appointed as Typist on 24.07.2009 and promoted to the post of Assistant on 06.02.2012 and subsequently as Head Clerk on 16.05.2015. He was promoted as Grade II Bench Clerk on 04.04.2016 and thereafter promoted as Translator on 08.06.2016 and finally he was promoted as Senior Sheristadar on 03.10.2022.

2. Based on a complaint, a departmental disciplinary proceedings are initiated against the petitioner. Two separate charge memorandums have been issued under Section 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The writ petitioner submitted explanations denying the charges. Simultaneously writ petitions are filed challenging the charge memorandums.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that an enquiry officer had been appointed to conduct domestic enquiry in respect of the two charge memorandums and the enquiry proceedings have commenced. At this stage, the writ petitions came to be instituted challenging the very charge memo.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the allegations are false. The complainant had submitted a letter withdrawing the complaint. Therefore, there is no need to continue the departmental disciplinary proceedings.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents would oppose by stating that the allegations are serious and the enquiry officer already commenced the enquiry proceedings. Therefore, the charge memorandums at this stage need not be interfered with.

6. This Court has considered the rival submissions made between the parties to the lis on hand.

7. Challenge against the charge memorandums can be made only on limited grounds. If any charge memorandum has been issued by an incompetent authority having no jurisdiction or tainted with allegations of malafide, then alone the Court in exercise of the powers of judicial review may entertain the writ petition. In the event of raising an allegation of malafide against any authority, such authority must be impleaded as respondent in his/her personal capacity. The allegations of malafide should be established/proved beyond any pale of doubt. Mere statements or averments in affidavits would be insufficient to prove malafide against the competent authority. Factual inferences alone per se would not constitute a ground for malafides.

8. In the present case, the grounds raised to assail the charge memorandum are on merits. Disputed facts cannot be adjudicated by the High Court in a writ proceedings. All such disputed facts are to be adjudicated during the domestic enquiry/proceedings based on the documents available on record and the evidences produced between the parties. Nipping in the bud is not desirable in departmental disciplinary proceedings. In the event of setting aside the charge memo on merits, it would cause prejudice to the interest of the administration. Therefore, the scope of entertaining a writ proceedings against a charge memo is limited and disputed facts raised on merits between the parties deserves adjudication at the hands of the disciplinary authority by following the procedures as contemplated under the Discipline and Appeal Rules and by affording an opportunity to the delinquent officers. Any findings by the Writ Court on merits would also cause prejudice in the matter of conduct of departmental proceedings. Thus, the High Court is expected to exercise restraint in dealing with the merits in the event of charge memorandum being under challenge and the parties have to be relegated to defend their case by availing the opportunities to be afforded by the Disciplinary Authority under the Discipline and Appeal Rules applicable. The issuance of charge memo per se would not constitute a cause for institution of writ proceedings nor infringe upon the service right of an employee.

9. In the present case, domestic enquiry proceedings have already been commenced. Thus, the writ petitioner is at liberty to raise all the grounds on merits before the competent authority by availing the opportunity to be afforded to him.

10. In view of the above discussions, the present writ petitions are devoid of merits and the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. (S.M.S.,J.) (C.K.,J.) 27-08-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SLI To

1. The Registrar General, High Court, Madras.

2. The Principal District Judge, Salem.

3. The Subordinate Judge, Omalur, Salem District.

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J. AND C.KUMARAPPAN J. SLI WP Nos. 49930 & 49935 of 2025 AND WMP Nos. 55811 & 55816 of 2025 27-08-2026