Madras High Court
WP/8110/2022 of D.Arul Vs The Additional Principal Secretary to Government on 28 October 2026
WP No. 8110 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
WP No. 8110 of 2022
CNR:{HCMA010467902022}
and
WMP No.8094 of 2022
D.Arul
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Additional Principal Secretary to Government Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (E5)
Department, Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Director of Rural Development and Panchayatraj Panagal Maaligai, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015.
3. The District Collector
Ariyalur District, Ariyalur.
4. The Project/Director/Joint Director
District Rural Development Agency,
Ariyalur District, Ariyalur.
5. The Block Development Officer
(Village Panchayat), Panchayat Union Office, Andimadam, Ariyalur District.
..Respondent(s)
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarifed Mandamus, calling for the records of the 5th respondent passed in Na. Ka. No. B4 / 690 / 2020, dated 03.11.2021 and quash the same and direct the 3rd respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with all attendant service and other monetary benefits with continuity of service within a time frame, as may be fixed by this Court.
WP No. 8110 of 2022
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.L.Chandrakumar
For Respondent(s):
Mr.V.Tamizhanban,
Government Advocate
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
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the fifth respondent in Na.Ka.No.B4/690/2020, dated 03.11.2021, quashing the same and directing the third respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service, with all attendant service and other monetary benefits, continuity of service, and within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order dated 03.11.2021 terminating the petitioner's services was passed without affording him any opportunity. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the counter affidavit, wherein certain instances of delinquency on the part of the petitioner have been referred to. It is his contention that, having referred to such instances of delinquency in the counter affidavit, the impugned order cannot be termed as a mere discharge simpliciter. Hence, he prayed to allow the present Writ Petition.
WP No. 8110 of 2022
3. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents stoutly opposed the aforesaid contention and submitted that, on a perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the same merely records the discharge of the petitioner. Though certain instances of delinquency have been referred to in the counter affidavit, the same were mentioned only to place the relevant facts on record. The petitioner was discharged by way of a discharge simpliciter, as he was only a contractual employee. Therefore, the respondent authority, upon due consideration of the relevant documents, passed the impugned order, which does not warrant any interference by this Court.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side.
5. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the impugned order of discharge is punitive in nature, no serious contention has been raised with regard to the denial of the principles of natural justice. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the counter affidavit, a perusal of the impugned order reveals that it is merely an order of discharge simpliciter. Apart from that, the petitioner was not appointed to any sanctioned post and, on the date of discharge, was only a contractual employee.
WP No. 8110 of 2022
6. In view of the aforesaid factual position, this Court does not find any merit in the present Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. 28-10-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes KV To
1. The Additional Principal Secretary to Government Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (E5) Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Director of Rural Development and Panchayatraj Panagal Maaligai, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015.
3. The District Collector Ariyalur District, Ariyalur.
3. The Project/Director/Joint Director District Rural Development Agency, Ariyalur District, Ariyalur.
4. The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat), Panchayat Union Office, Andimadam, Ariyalur District.
WP No. 8110 of 2022
C.KUMARAPPAN J. KV WP No. 8110 of 2022 28-10-2026