2026:MHC:1335IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 19.02.2026

PRONOUNCED ON : 02.04.2026

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

W.P.Nos. 7179 & 7180 of 2025

And

W.M.P.Nos. 7964 & 7970 of 2025

K.Suresh

Son of Mr.V.Kandasamy ...Petitioner in both W.Ps.

Vs.

1.The union of India represented by

The Secretary to Government’sMinistry of Personnel, Public

Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training

North Block, New Delhi – 110 001.

2.The Chief Secretary

Government of Madhya Pradesh

Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh... Respondents in both W.Ps.

PRAYER W.P.No. 7179 of 2025: Petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified

Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order in

O.A.No. 954 of 2016 dated 25.10.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Central

Page 1 of 23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Administrative Tribunal, Chennai and quash the same and direct the

respondents to refrain from proceeding with the disciplinary action

pursuant to the charge memo issued by the First Respondent in No.

106/19/2011-AVD 1 dated 26.08.2015 and grant me all retirement benefits

with interest.

PRAYER W.P.No. 7180 of 2025: Petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified

Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order in

O.A.No. 1080 of 2018 dated 25.10.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Central

Administrative Tribunal, Chennai and quash the same and direct the

respondents to refrain from proceeding with the disciplinary action

pursuant to the charge memo issued by the First Respondent in No.

106/19/2011-AVD 1 dated 26.08.2015 and grant me all retirement benefits

with interest.

***

For Petitioner in

both W.Ps. : Mr. P.Rajendran

For Respondents in

both W.Ps. : Mr. V.Chandrasekar

Central Government Standing Counsel

COMMON ORDER

Page 2 of 23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

(Order of the Court was made by C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.)

These two Writ Petitions have been filed by K.Suresh, the petitioner

in O.A.No. 954 of 2016 and in O.A.No. 1080 of 2018, aggrieved by the

common order dated 25.10.2024 passed by the Central Administrative

Tribunal, Chennai Bench dismissing both the Original Applications.

2. Both the Original Applications and both the Writ Petitions relate

to the same bundle of facts. Arguments were also advanced in common.

We would therefore passed a common order in both the Writ Petitions.

3.The petitioner K.Suresh was an IAS Officer of the 1982 batch

in Madhya Pradesh cadre. He had served for over 33 years at the Centre

and State levels. He was to retire on attaining the age of superannuation on

31.08.2015. He was to have retired as Principal Secretary, General

Administration, Human Rights and Legislative Affairs, Government of

Madhya Pradesh.

4. It is his contention that on the last date of his service on

31.08.2015, he attended office till 02.00 p.m., and thereafter at around

02.15 p.m submitted the form relating to handing over of charge, which

Page 3 of 23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

was acknowledged by the Secretary to the Government of Madhya

Pradesh, General Administrative Department. He then left his office.

During the arguments, it emanated that he had gone over to have tea with

the Chief Secretary of the Government of Madhya Pradesh.

5. It is his further contention that he came down to Chennai to settle

down when he received a notice dated 05.10.2015 which stated that a

charge memo dated 26.08.2015 had been issued to him following the

panchanama procedure and that he had refused to accept the same. In the

notice, it was also stated that a scanned copy of the charge memo had also

been sent to his personal and official E-mail addresses. The charge memo

was also enclosed along with the notice. The petitioner was called upon to

submit his written statement of defence within a period of two weeks.

6. The petitioner issued a reply on 12.11.2015 denying the allegation

that he had refused to receive the charge memo and pointed out that the

charge memo sent on 05.10.2015 was invalid since he had already retired

from service. He therefore sought withdrawal of the charge memo.

7. The petitioner then obtained information under the Right to

Page 4 of 23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Information Act and came to know that the charge memo dated 26.06.2008

had been pasted on his official residence at 03.00 p.m., on 31.08.2015 after

he had handed over charge at 02.15 p.m. and had left the office,

presumably having retired.

8. It was contended that he was neither suspended from service nor

retained in service to initiate or continue the disciplinary proceedings. The

charge memo related to the period 2005, when he was functioning as

Chairman of Chennai Port Trust. It was contended that the issuance of the

charge memo on the date of his retirement was impermissible.

9. The petitioner filed O.A.No. 954 of 2016 before the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, challenging the charge memo. Even

when the matter was pending before the Tribunal, an Enquiry Officer had

been appointed and the petitioner was called to attend the enquiry

proceedings. Claiming that the issuance of charge memo requires delivery

of the charge memo in person and contending that the charge memo had

never been served on him in accordance with due procedure, and

questioning the enquiry proceedings, he filed O.A.No. 1080 of 2018 again

before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai.

Page 5 of 23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

10. The petitioner contended that service of notices and process in a

litigation is different from service of a charge memo in disciplinary

proceedings. He contended that the charges related to the years 2005 to

2009, and that they were time barred. He also questioned the disciplinary

proceedings initiated against him and contended that the entire proceedings

stand vitiated owing to violation of the rules governing issuance of a

charge memo.

11. The Tribunal had taken up for consideration both the Original

Applications and by common order dated 25.10.2024, dismissed both the

applications. The Tribunal in its order had observed that the charges

included allegations of money laundering when the petitioner was

Chairman of Chennai Port Trust during the year 2005. It was also observed

that the charges alleged that he indulged in depositing the laundered

money in bank accounts held in several names and then used those funds to

obtain 11 demand drafts in favour of his wife. He also indulged in carrying

on construction of building to the value of Rs.70.31 lakhs at Chennai on

land which was originally allotted to his wife in a family partition. It was

further alleged that the petitioner had not disclosed the actual value of the

Page 6 of 23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

land and building in his Property Returns filed in the year 2004-2005. It

was also observed by the Tribunal that several other financial transactions

had also been listed in the Charge Memo about which intimation had not

been given to the competent authority.

12. With respect to the manner in which the charge memo was

issued, it had been observed that the petitioner was not present in office

after 02.00 p.m and therefore, it was not possible to serve the charge memo

on him in person. The charge memo was therefore pasted in his official

residence. It was also pointed out that the charge memo had been earlier

served through electronic mail to the personal and official e-mail addresses.

The Charge Memo was also sent through registered post to his official

residence which was returned with an endorsement 'refused'. The Tribunal

therefore held that necessary and sufficient steps had been taken to serve

the charge memo. It was also held that since the charge memo had been

issued before the retirement of the petitioner, it must be deemed that

departmental proceedings had commenced. The contention of the

petitioner that he had not been placed under suspension and must be

deemed to have retired was rejected. The Tribunal dismissed both the

Original Applications, necessitating the petitioner to file the present two

Page 7 of 23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Writ Petitions.

13. Heard Mr.P.Rajendran, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Mr.V.Chandrasekaran, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for

the respondents.

14.Mr.P.Rajendran, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out

that the petitioner, an IAS Officer, was, at the time of his retirement on

31.08.2018, working as Under Secretary to the Government of Madhya

Pradesh. On the date of his retirement, he had handed over charge and

submitted the necessary form and thereafter left the office at 02.15 p.m.

The learned counsel contended that since the petitioner had handed over

charge, it must be deemed that he had retired from service the minute he

had handed over the charge. The learned counsel contended that the

petitioner also went over to the office of the Chief Secretary to have tea.

The learned counsel denied that copies of the charge memo had been

earlier sent through electronic mail either to the personal e-mail address or

the official e-mail address of the petitioner. The learned counsel argued that

the contention of the respondents that a copy of the charge memo was

pasted in the official residence of the petitioner cannot be considered as

Page 8 of 23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

proper service since the petitioner had demitted office on attaining the age

of superannuation and had also left the office and therefore could no longer

be considered as a public servant.

15. The learned counsel further contended that the relationship of

employer / employee stood frustrated once the petitioner had handed over

charge to the subsequent officer. The learned counsel further contended

that the charge memo should have been served in person in accordance

with the rules and service through any other alternate method would vitiate

the proceedings and therefore contended that the entire proceedings will

have to be struck down.

16. In this connection, the learned counsel placed reliance on Rule

8(5) of the Indian Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules relating to

delivery of a charge memo which specifically provided that a charge memo

shall be delivered or caused to be delivered in person. It had been

contended that issuance of a charge memo was distinguishable from

delivery of the charge memo.

17. The learned counsel placed reliance on the order of the

Page 9 of 23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Bangalore Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No. 395 of

2014 which order was confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court

of Karnataka, Bangalore in W.P.No. 51898/2015 (S-CAT) and further

confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave to

Appeal C.C.No. 13848 of 2016 wherein it had been held that service of a

charge memo is mandatory.

18. The learned counsel further pointed out that whenever

disciplinary proceedings are contemplated to be initiated, service of charge

memo is essential and mere communication is not sufficient. He contended

that actual service must be proved. The learned counsel contended that

service of notices and process in a litigation are different from service of a

charge memo and argued that since the charge memo had not been directly

served on the petitioner, it can never be stated that the disciplinary

proceedings had commenced prior to the date of retirement. It was further

contended that the petitioner had never refused to receive the charge

memo. It was further contended that the endorsement 'refused' in the notice

sent through registered post had not been made by the petitioner since the

petitioner had vacated the residential quarters on the date of his retirement.

It was also contended that explanation had not been given by the

Page 10 of 23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

respondents as to why the charge memo was issued just a few days prior to

the retirement of the petitioner when the allegations related to the year

2005 onwards. The learned counsel therefore contended that the Writ

Petitions must be allowed and the charge memo and the disciplinary

proceedings must be quashed.

19. Mr.V.Chandrasekaran, learned Central Government Standing

Counsel for the respondents disputed the said contentions. The learned

counsel pointed out that the charges against the petitioner were very serious

in nature. As a matter of fact, even prior to his reitrement on 26.08.2015, a

charge memo had been forwarded to the petitioner by electronic mail to

both his personal e-mail address and the official e-mail address. The

learned counsel argued that such service should be construed as direct

service of the charge memo. The learned counsel further pointed out that

on 31.08.2018, the petitioner had left the office at 02.15 p.m., after signing

the form, but however nobody had taken over charge from the petitioner

and therefore, the petitioner was deemed to be in office. He also pointed

out that retirement would be effective only from the closing time of the

office and not at a time when the petitioner wishes in the mid afternoon.

He also pointed out that immediately at 03.15 p.m, since the petitioner was

Page 11 of 23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

not available in the office, the charge memo had been pasted in the official

residence of the petitioner. He also stated that on that date, the charge

memo was also sent by registered post to the official residence of the

petitioner. The cover had been returned with an endorsement 'refused' and

significantly not with an endorsement that the person was not available or

had left. The learned counsel therefore contended that the petitioner had

deliberately refused to receive the charge memo.

20. The learned counsel further argued that the records in this

connection are available. During the course of arguments the original

records relating to service of charge memo in the aforesaid manner had

also been produced. The learned counsel argued that the petitioner had

deliberately avoided receipt of the charge memo and cannot take advantage

of this surreptitious act of evading service and avoiding receipt of the

charge memo. The learned counsel contended that the Tribunal had

correctly dismissed the applications and urged dismissal of the Writ

Petitions.

21. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced and

Page 12 of 23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

perused the materials available on record.

22. The petitioner, an IAS Officer of Madhya Pradesh Cadre was

functioning as Principal Secretary, General Administration, Human Rights

and Legislative Affairs, Government of Madhya Pradesh when he attained

the age of superannuation and was to retire from service on 31.08.2015.

Much earlier while functioning as Chairman of Chennai Port Trust during

the year 2005, it has been alleged that he had indulged in money laundering

by depositing cash of Rs.15,00,000/- in the account of one K.P.Ramaraja

alias Kuwait Raja in the IIT Branch of Canara Bank for purchase of a plot

along with house at Kodaikanal. The sale deed was executed in the name of

P.K.Ganesh Ram of Rajapalayam, the brother-in-law of K.P.Ramaraja @

Kuwait Raja. The petitioner was alleged to have indulged in various other

transactions of similar nature which have been listed out. These allegations

necessitated issuance of a charge memo on 26.08.2015. There were totally

six separate charges.

23. It is the case of the respondents that this charge memo was sent

through E-mail on 26.08.2015 to the personal and official e-mail addresses

of the petitioner. There is no specific denial of this fact by the petitioner.

Page 13 of 23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

24. Apart from forwarding the charge memo by e-mail on

26.08.2015, the copy of the charge memo was sent to the official address of

the petitioner herein by registered post.

25. On 31.08.2015, the date on which the petitioner was to retire, he

left office around 02.15 p.m., according to him, after handing over charge.

He then went to the office of the Chief Secretary to have tea. He did not

come back to his office.

26The document by which he had handed over charge had been

presented before this Court. A scanned copy of the same is extracted

below:-

27. It is seen

that the designation

of the Officer to whom

the petitioner had

Page 14 of 23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

allegedly handed over charge had not been mentioned. It is further seen

that the signature of the relieving Officer had also not been appended. This

is just a self serving document. As a matter of fact, the date 31 had been

changed and re-written as 14, though the petitioner had signed on

31.08.2015. The petitioner claims that since he had signed this document,

he must be deemed to have retired on and from 02.00 p.m., on 31.08.2015.

28. We disagree.

29. Every public office transacts business till the closing hours in

the evening and till that time, every public servant, including the petitioner

is deemed to be a public servant. The petitioner cannot walk away from

office at any time he pleases and claim that he was no longer in service.

30. This fact assumes significance since the respondents have been

making fervent and strenuous efforts to serve the charge memo in person

on the petitioner. They had taken steps to serve the original charge memo

to the petitioner in person in the afternoon on 31.10.2015. He was not

present in office. Thereafter, the respondents were instructed by the Chief

Secretary of the Government of Madhya Pradesh that necessary

Page 15 of 23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

instructions may be obtained from the higher officials of the Government

of India. It was then informed that the charge memo could be served by

pasting it in the official residence of the petitioner. Accordingly, it was

pasted his official residence at B-2, Char Lmli, Bophal at 03.15 p.m., in the

evening on 31.08.2015 by the S.D.O (Revenue), Thasildar and additional

Thasildar as directed by the Collector, Bhopal. This act of pasting the

charge memo was photographed and videographed and a panchanama was

also prepared and the same was sent by the Government of Madhya

Pradesh to the Government of India by letter dated 31.08.2015.

31. During the arguments, we had called for the records for pasting

of the charge memo in the official residence of the petitioner herein.

Accordingly, the entire original records including the photographs and also

the original panchanama and also the order of the Collector, Bhopal had

been produced before us.

32. The learned counsel for the petitioner however argued that only

Court notices and suit summons, could be sent in any mode, but a charge

memo should be served in person and since this requirement had not been

complied it has to be deemed that the petitioner had been permitted to

Page 16 of 23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

retire from service without issuance of any charge memo. He further

pointed out that the petitioner had not been placed under suspension nor

was any order passed not permitting him to retire.

33. In this connection, the learned counsel placed reliance on the

Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2015) 11 SCC 628

[Tata Chemicals Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Customs (preventive),

Jamnagar]. In the said Judgment, it had been held as follows:-

“If the law requires that something be done in a

particular manner, it must be done in that manner,

and if not done in that manner has no existence in

the eye of the law at all.”

34. The learned counsel argued that since the rules provided that a

charge memo must be served in person, the claim that service is sufficient

though it had been served in an alternate mode should be rejected by this

Court.

Page 17 of 23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

35. The learned counsel further placed reliance on Rule 8(5) of the

All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) rules relating to delivery of

charge memo.

36. Rule 8(5) reads as follows:-

“8(5): The disciplinary authority shall deliver or

cause to be delivered to the member of the service

a copy of the articles of charge, the statement of

the imputations.........”

37. Placing reliance on the above Rule and the Judgment referred

Supra in (2015) 11 SCC 628 [Tata Chemicals Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of

Customs (preventive), Jamnagar], learned counsel argued that since the

charge memo had not been delivered in person on the writ petitioner, it

must be deemed that the charge memo had never been delivered at all. It

was further argued that an alternate method of service of a charge memo

has not been contemplated in the rules and therefore, the claim of the

respondents that they had sent the charge memo by e-mail or that they had

affixed the charge memo in the official residence or that they had sent it by

registered post would not come to their rescue to hold that the charge

Page 18 of 23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

memo had been served in manner known to law and in accordance with the

rules.

38. We however decline to accept the said arguments of the learned

counsel.

39. The charge memo could be served on an Officer only if the

Officer is physically present and receives the charge memo without any

demur or protest. However, no notice, whether it be a charge memo or any

other official communication can ever be served on any public servant

when the public servant simply disappears from office even prior to the

closing hours and as early as 02.15 pm only to claim later that the charge

memo had not been served directly on him. A farewell function could be

held in the middle of the office hours but that would not absolve the duty

and responsibility of a public servant particularly the petitioner, who is an

IAS officer, to remain in office till the closing hour. This act of

disappearance in mid-afternoon clearly exposes the surreptitious manner in

which the petitioner had avoided receipt of the charge memo.

40. It must be again pointed out that even earlier on 26.08.2015, the

Page 19 of 23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

charge memo had been forwarded to the personal and official e-mail

addresses of the petitioner. He therefore cannot claim ignorance of the fact

that a charge memo is contemplated to be served on him. As a responsible

Officer, he should have received the same. He had however devised a crude

plan to avoid receiving the same by leaving the office even before the

closing hours, in the mid afternoon itself. This conduct is glaring and

reveals the oblique attitude of the petitioner, who had escaped from the

office more like a fututive rather than as an IAS Officer, who lays down his

office with dignity on attaining the age of superannuation.

41. The petitioner cannot seek any indulgence from this Court. We

hold that the petitioner was aware of the charge memo and had deliberately

avoided receipt of the same. We further hold that the respondents had taken

all possible steps to serve the charge memo on the petitioner by sending it

by electronic mail, by trying to serve it in person during the office hours

and by affixing the charge memo in the official residence of the petitioner

and by sending it by registered post to the official residence. The charge

memo sent through registered post had been returned with the endorsement

“refused”. This would only indicate that the petitioner had deliberately

refused to receive the charge memo. We hold that the charge memo had

Page 20 of 23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

been served on the petitioner.

42. We hold that the petitioner had deliberately avoided receiving

the charge memo. The claim that he was busy in handing over the charge

and in attending the farewell function and therefore, could not check his

personal e-mail address are all rejected by us. We hold that there is no

ground for quashing the charge memo or the enquiry proceedings.

43. We hold that no grounds had been raised to interfere with the

order of the Tribunal. The petitioner will necessarily have to face

disciplinary proceedings which would also give him an opportunity to

explain the allegations levelled against him.

44. We direct the respondents to proceed further with the

disciplinary proceedings forthwith and endeavour to complete the same as

early as possible provided ofcourse the petitioner does not again indulge in

oblique tactics.

45. The Writ Petitions are dismissed. The order of the Tribunal

stands confirmed. No costs. Consequently connected Writ Petitions stand

closed.

Page 21 of 23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

[C.V.K., J.] [K.B., J.]

02.04.2026

Index: Yes/No

Internet:Yes/No

Neutral Citation: Yes/No

vsg

To:

1.The Secretary to Government’sMinistry of Personnel,

The union of India

Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and

Training

North Block, New Delhi – 110 001.

2.The Chief Secretary

Government of Madhya Pradesh

Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

AND

K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

vsg

Pre-Delivery Order made in

W.P.Nos. 7179 & 7180 of 2025

Page 22 of 23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

And

W.M.P.Nos. 7964 & 7970 of 2025

02.04.2026

Page 23 of 23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis