W.P.(MD) No.5965 of 2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Date of Reserving the Order Date of Pronouncing the Order

02.06.2026 17.06.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

W.P.(MD) No.5965 of 2026

and

W.M.P.(MD) No.4990 of 2026

P.Vanithai ... Petitioner

-vs-

The Director of Municipal Administration

Directorate of Municipal Administration

Chennai-28 ... Respondent

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue

a writ of certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned charge

memorandum in Roc.No.7976/2025/V2, dated 30.01.2026, on the file of the

respondent and quash the same as illegal.

For Petitioner :Mr.T.Aswin Rajasimman

For Respondent :Mrs.K.Porkodi

Counsel for the Government

_______________

Page 1 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.5965 of 2026

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari to call

for the records relating to the charge memo bearing Roc.No.7976/2025/V2,

dated 30.01.2026, issued by the respondent to the petitioner and to quash the

same.

2. The brief facts that are relevant for the disposal of this writ

petition are as under:

2.1. The petitioner, while working as Junior Engineer at

Uthamapalayam Town Panchayat, was involved in a trap case of the

Vigilance and Anti-Corruption and a crime was registered against the

petitioner in Crime No.1 of 2009 and the said crime was taken on file

as Special Case No.5 of 2014, on the file of the Chief Judicial

Magistrate Court / Special Court, Theni, against the petitioner herein

and two others and the said criminal case was ended in convicting

the petitioner vide Judgment dated 03.08.2018. Consequent upon

the said conviction, the petitioner was removed from service vide

proceedings bearing Roc.No.10430/2009/V2, dated 13.09.2019,

_______________

Page 2 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.5965 of 2026

issued by the Commissioner of Municipal Administration. In the

meanwhile, the petitioner having been aggrieved by the Judgment

dated 03.08.2018 in Special Case No.5 of 2014, preferred an appeal

in Crl.A.(MD) No.444 of 2018 before this Court and the said criminal

appeal came to be allowed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide

Judgment dated 31.01.2025.

2.2. It was thereafter, the petitioner approached the

respondent and accordingly, the case of the petitioner was considered

and she was reinstated into service through proceedings dated

04.08.2025 and was posted at Vellore Corporation. It was thereafter,

the petitioner was transferred to Madurai Corporation vide order

dated 11.09.2025.

2.3. While the petitioner was working at Madurai

Corporation, the respondent herein issued the impugned charge

memo dated 30.01.2026 containing two charges. The said charges

read as under:

_______________

Page 3 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.5965 of 2026

“Charge No.1:

“that you A-1 Tmt. P. Vanithai while working as Junior

Engineer in Uthamapalayam Town Panchayat office, Theni

District have demanded bribe of Rs.25,000/- on

07.02.2009 at Uthamapalayam Fathuma School works site

for issuing work completion report to the complainant

Thiru.G.N.Govindaraj who was awarded the contract work

of providing water supply through mini pump power house

in ward No.7, 15. Mallingapuram and Chinnankulam in

Pannaipuram Town Panchayat at a estimate cost of Rs.

4,60,000/- under Anna Marumalarchi Scheme. A-2

Tr.P.Subramani, Work Inspector, Uthamapalayam Town

Panchayat office, Theni District was also present at that

time. On the request of complainant Thiru. G.N.Govindaraj

on 10.02.2009, you and A-2 had reduced the bribe amount

to Rs. 12,000/- and directed the complainant to pay the

amount to you or A-2 on 11.02.2009 morning at

Uthamapalaym works site. However complainant could not

prepare the amount on 11.02.2009. Again on 12.02.2009,

complainant contacted you over phone and you reiterated

your earlier demand of Rs. 12,000/- and directed him to

pay the amount and photos on 13.02.2009 at

Uthamapalayam works-site either to you or A-2. Then

Complainant met you at Uthamapalayam works-site of

Varangal construction in front of Kalatheeswarar

Gnnambigai Temple on 13.02.2009, you was seated in

front seat of a TATA-INDICA Car and directed the

_______________

Page 4 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.5965 of 2026

complainant to hand over the amount and photos to A-3

Tr.S.Alaguraja, Car-driver, who was also sitting in his

driver seat. A-3 is a private car driver. Complainant

Thiru.G.N.Govindaraj handed over Rs.12,000/- and photos

to A-3 who accepted the same after counting, kept the bribe

amount and photos in the car dashboard.

Charge No.2:

"That you, AO-1 Tmt.P.Vanithai, formerly Junior

Engineer, Uthamapalayam Town Panchayat, Theni District,

now Junior Engineer, Madurai Corporation had failed to

maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty in a

manner unbecoming of Government servant and acted in a

manner in violated of Rule 20 of the Tamil Nadu

Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973."

3. It is aggrieved by the said charge memo dated 30.01.2026, the

petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the same on twin grounds.

Firstly, on the ground that the very same charges are the subject matter of

Crl.A.(MD) No.444 of 2018 and once the competent Criminal Court decided

the matter, it is not open for the respondent to initiate disciplinary

proceedings on the very same charges as the witnesses, who were examined in

the said criminal proceedings and the witnesses who are proposed to be

examined in the present disciplinary proceedings are one and the same.

_______________

Page 5 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.5965 of 2026

Secondly, on the ground that the basis for issuance of the impugned charge

memo is an incident that took place in the year 2009 and the same is sought

to be enquired into now i.e., after a lapse of 17 years. Therefore, it would

cause serious prejudice to the petitioner.

4. This Court, while entertaining this writ petition, by an order

dated 05.03.2026, having taken note of the abnormal delay in initiation of the

disciplinary proceedings, granted interim stay of operation of the impugned

charge memo.

5. The respondent filed a counter-affidavit contending that the

Government has issued guidelines through G.O.(Ms) No.66, Human Resources

Management (N) Department, dated 06.07.2022, in the matter of initiation of

disciplinary proceedings, where criminal proceedings were also initiated

against the delinquent employee. The respondent is stated to have initiated

disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in terms of the guidelines laid

down in the said Government Order. It is also stated that the standard of

proof that is required in the criminal proceedings is beyond reasonable doubt,

whereas in the disciplinary proceedings, only the preponderance of

probabilities is sufficient to arrive at a conclusion.

_______________

Page 6 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.5965 of 2026

6. Heard Mr.T.Aswin Rajasimman, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mrs.K.Porkodi, learned counsel for the Government, appearing

for the respondent.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that once the

delinquent employee is acquitted on the very same charges by a competent

court of law, it is not open for the employer to initiate disciplinary proceedings,

on the very same charges and in support of his contention, he placed reliance

on a decision of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Ram Lal vs. State

of Rajasthan and others, reported in (2024) 1 SCC 175.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also drew the attention of

this Court to the list of witnesses, who were examined in the criminal

proceedings and the list of witnesses, who are sought to be examined in the

disciplinary proceedings initiated through the impugned charge memo and

contended that the very same witnesses are sought to be examined and

therefore, the respondent cannot be permitted to proceed with the further

proceedings pursuant to the impugned charge memo. He also further

contended that the allegation / misconduct that is sought to be enquired into

_______________

Page 7 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.5965 of 2026

through the impugned charge memo is relating to the year 2009 and for the

first time, the same is sought to be enquired into by issuing the impugned

charge memo after a lapse of 17 years and therefore, the same would cause

serious prejudice to the petitioner. He also further contended that it is not

possible for the petitioner to re-collect and remember the incident that has

taken place in the year 2009 in order to defend herself in the disciplinary

proceedings initiated through the impugned proceedings. Thus, he contended

that the delay in initiation of the disciplinary proceedings by itself would cause

serious prejudice to the petitioner. In support of his contention, he also

placed reliance on the decisions of the Honourable Apex Court, namely,

P.V.Mahadevan vs. MD.T.N.Housing Board , reported in (2005) 6 SCC 636

and Amresh Shrivastava vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & others ,

reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 376.

9. On the other hand, Mrs.K.Porkodi, learned counsel for the

Government appearing for the respondent contended that the grounds, on

which the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal proceedings, are totally

different and the core reason for acquittal is the failure on the part of the

investigating agency to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubts and

therefore, the impugned charge memo cannot be interfered with basing on the

_______________

Page 8 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.5965 of 2026

acquittal recorded in the criminal proceedings and in support of the said

contention, she also placed reliance on the decisions of the Honourable Apex

Court in the cases of Ajit Kumar Nag vs. General Manager (P.J.), Indian

Oil Corporation Ltd., Haldia and others , reported in (2005) 7 SCC 764;

The Divisional Controller, KSRTC vs. M.G.Vittal Rao , reported in (2012) 1

SCC 442; State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Akhilesh Jha and

others, reported in (2021) 12 SCC 460 and Airports Authority of India vs.

Pradip Kumar Banerjee, reported in 2025 INSC 149.

10. Learned counsel for the Government also further contended

that the disciplinary proceedings initiated now against the petitioner are in

terms of the guidelines laid down by the Government under G.O.(Ms) No.66,

Human Resources Management (N) Department, dated 06.07.2022 and no

prejudice would be caused to the petitioner, if she participates in the enquiry

and if at all she is not guilty of the charges, she can establish the same by

adducing appropriate evidence during the course of disciplinary proceedings.

She also further submitted that as the petitioner was convicted resulting in

removal of the petitioner from service as early as in the year 2018, no

disciplinary proceedings could be initiated against her and it is only

consequent upon her acquittal vide Judgment dated 31.01.2025 passed by

_______________

Page 9 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.5965 of 2026

this Court in Crl.A.(MD) No.444 of 2018, it has become incumbent on the part

of the respondent to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.

11. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on

either side and also perused the entire materials on record.

12. From the perusal of the first charge as levelled against the

petitioner, it is evident that the incident, which is the basis for framing of the

said charge against the petitioner, relates back to the month of February,

2009. Thereafter, no action was taken by the respondent to initiate any

disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner till the petitioner was acquitted

by this Court vide Judgment dated 31.01.2025 passed in Crl.A.(MD) No.444 of

2018. No doubt, a crime was registered against the petitioner on 12.02.2009,

which ultimately ended in conviction of the petitioner on 03.08.2018 resulting

in removal of the petitioner from service by an order dated 13.09.2019 passed

by the Commissioner of Municipal Administration. But, no explanation is

offered by the respondent as to why no disciplinary proceedings were initiated

against the petitioner from 13.02.2009 till 03.08.2018 i.e., for more than nine

years. If at all the respondent was of the view that the case on hand is a fit

case for initiation of disciplinary proceedings simultaneously with the criminal

_______________

Page 10 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.5965 of 2026

proceedings and the charges and evidence are different, the respondent

should have initiated disciplinary proceedings in the year 2009 itself and

should have concluded the same at the earliest. But, in the instant case,

though the respondent is fully aware of the involvement of the petitioner in a

trap case, has chosen not to initiate any disciplinary proceedings till the year

2018 when the criminal proceeding ended before the Trial Court. Absolutely,

no explanation is offered on the side of the respondent for not initiating

disciplinary proceedings till the year 2018.

13. As seen from the charge memo as well as the counter-

affidavit, absolutely there is no reason assigned by the respondent as to what

made them to initiate disciplinary proceedings at this length of time. Mere

acquittal of the petitioner cannot be a reason for initiation of disciplinary

proceedings, if the respondent really intends to initiate disciplinary

proceedings for the alleged misconduct of the petitioner pertaining to the year

2009. By initiating disciplinary proceedings after a lapse of 17 years, the

respondent is requiring the petitioner to re-collect what had transpired 17

years back and to submit her explanation to the charges. Such an act would

definitely cause severe prejudice to the petitioner, who has undergone a

trauma of facing criminal proceedings for 17 years and further making her to

_______________

Page 11 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.5965 of 2026

suffer the same for some more time by initiating disciplinary proceedings after

the conclusion of the criminal proceedings. If at all the respondent was of the

view that disciplinary proceedings are also necessary against the petitioner for

the alleged misconduct, they ought to have initiated the same at an earliest

opportunity available to them in the year 2009 or immediately thereafter,

which apparently, the respondent has not chosen to do so.

14. In the instant case, the acquittal of the petitioner is

undoubtedly not solely on merits and the same also cannot be termed as

“Honourable Acquittal”. This Court, while acquitting the petitioner, has come

to the conclusion that the inconsistent evidence let in by the prosecution on

the demand and recovery on the date of trap is doubtful and the said doubts

were not clarified by the prosecution in a proper manner. The relevant portion

from the said Judgment reads as under:

“57.So, coming to the demand on the date of the trap, in

view of the inconsistent evidence let in by the prosecution the

demand and recovery also doubtful. These doubts were not

clarified by the prosecution in a proper manner. So, the

judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court

is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside.”

_______________

Page 12 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.5965 of 2026

15. No doubt, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the

Government appearing for the respondent, the standard of proof that is

required to be established in the criminal proceedings is different from the

standard of proof that is required to be established in the departmental

proceedings. The petitioner was acquitted in the criminal proceedings because

of the failure on the part of the investigating agency to clarify the doubts with

regard to the demand and recovery of amount entertained by the Court. In

the disciplinary proceedings, the very same charges can be proved by

adducing proper evidence and any such doubts can also be clarified during

the course of departmental proceedings.

16. Further, the witnesses, who are sought to be examined in the

departmental proceedings, though are same to some extent. But, eight more

witnesses are sought to be examined in the departmental proceedings in

support of the charges framed against the petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be

said that the evidence that was adduced in the criminal proceedings and the

evidence that is going to be adduced in the departmental proceedings is also

one and the same. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioner that the impugned charge memo is liable to be quashed solely

basing upon the acquittal in the criminal proceedings by placing reliance on a

_______________

Page 13 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.5965 of 2026

decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Ram Lal's case (cited supra)

cannot be accepted.

17. Then, coming to the aspect of delay in initiation of disciplinary

proceedings, this Court finds force in the submissions made by the learned

counsel for the petitioner. In this regard, it would be relevant to refer to the

decision of the Honourable Apex Court in P.V.Mahadevan's case (cited supra),

wherein the Honourable Apex Court has held as under:

“11.Under the circumstances, we are of the

opinion that allowing the respondent to proceed

further with the departmental proceedings at this

distance of time will be very prejudicial to the

appellant. Keeping a higher government official under

charges of corruption and disputed integrity would

cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the

officer concerned. The protracted disciplinary enquiry

against a government employee should, therefore, be

avoided not only in the interests of the government

employee but in public interest and also in the

interests of inspiring confidence in the minds of the

government employees. At this stage, it is necessary

to draw the curtain and to put an end to the enquiry.

The appellant had already suffered enough and more

on account of the disciplinary proceedings. As a

_______________

Page 14 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.5965 of 2026

matter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the

appellant due to the protracted disciplinary

proceedings would be much more than the

punishment. For the mistakes committed by the

department in the procedure for initiating the

disciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not be

made to suffer.”

18. So also, in Amresh Shrivastava 's case (cited supra), the

Honourable Apex Court has held as follows:

“17. As to the second question, regarding

whether delay is a ground for stopping the

departmental proceedings at the stage of the

chargesheet itself, suffice it to say that this varies from

case to case. However, in the instant case where there

is unexplained inordinate delay in initiating

departmental proceedings despite the alleged

misconduct being within the knowledge of the

department, but still no departmental proceedings are

initiated, the answer must go in favour of the

employee. However, there may be cases where the

department was not even aware of such irregularities

or the misconduct, which is of such a nature that it is

indicative, based on material considerations of factors

other than merit, such as extraneous influences and

gratifications. In such cases, such a delay, by itself

_______________

Page 15 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.5965 of 2026

would not be a valid ground to scuttle the initiation of

the process of departmental proceedings.

18. Reference in this regard can be made to the

decision of this court in [1990 (Suppl) SCC 738,

wherein the court noted that there was no reason to

interfere with the quashing as the disciplinary

proceedings were initiated after 12 years of delay. A

reference should also be made to the decision of this

Court in P.v.Mahadevan vs. MD, T.N.Housing Board

[2005 (6) SCC 636, where it has been reiterated that

continuing the departmental proceedings after an

undue delay would be unjust, causing unnecessary

mental distress and damaging the reputation 1990

(Suppl.) SCC 738 2005 (6) SCC 636 of the employee

for the mistakes committed by the department in

initiating disciplinary proceedings.”

19. So also, in the case of State of A.P. vs. N.Radhakrishnan ,

reported in 1998 (4) SCC 154, it has been held as under:

“19.It is not possible to lay down any pre-

determined principles applicable to all cases and in all

situations where there is delay in concluding the

disciplinary proceedings. Whether on that ground the

disciplinary proceedings are to be terminated each

case has to be examined on the facts and

_______________

Page 16 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.5965 of 2026

circumstances in that case. the essence of the matter

is that the court has to take into consideration all

relevant factors and to balance and weight them to

determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest

administration that the disciplinary proceedings

should be allowed to terminate after delay particularly

when delay is abnormal and there is no explanation

for the delay. The delinquent employee has a right

that disciplinary proceedings against him are

concluded expeditiously and he s not made to

undergo mental agony and also monetary loss when

these are unnecessarily prolonged without any fault

on his part in delaying the proceedings. In considering

whether delay has vitiated the disciplinary

proceedings the Court has to consider the nature of

charge, its complexity and on what account the delay

has occurred. if the delay is unexplained prejudice to

the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it.

It could also be seen as to how much disciplinary

authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its

employee. It is the basic principle of administrative

justice that an officer enterusted with a particular job

has to perform his duties honestly, efficiently and in

accordance with the rules. If he deviates from this

path he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally,

disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take its

course as per relevant rules but then delay defeats

_______________

Page 17 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.5965 of 2026

justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer

unless it can be shown that he is to or when there is

proper explanation for the delay in conducting the

disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the court is to

balance these two diverse consideration.”

20. The above cited decisions of the Honourable Apex Court were

also referred to and followed by the Coordinate Benches of this Court in W.P.

(MD) No.30986 of 2023, Order dated 20.11.2025 ( P.Vijaya Kumar vs. The

Director of Survey and Settlement, Chennai-5 and another ); W.P.(MD) No.

25485 of 2025, Order dated 23.01.2026 ( R.Savariraj vs. The

Superintendeing Engineer, Dindigul Electricity Distribution Circle,

TANGEDCO, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District ) and W.P.(MD) Nos.9595 of

2021 & 24018 of 2024, Order dated 07.11.2025 (M.Masanam @ Muthiah vs.

The State of Tamil Nadu and others ).

21. In the light of the above settled legal position, in the matter of

delay in initiation of the disciplinary proceedings, this Court has no other

option except to conclude that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings

through the impugned charge memo against the petitioner after a lapse of 17

years and in the absence of any plausible explanation, is highly arbitrary,

_______________

Page 18 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.5965 of 2026

illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice and if the same is

allowed to continue, the same would result in grave prejudice to the petitioner.

Hence, the impugned charge memo issued against the petitioner is liable to be

quashed.

22. Accordingly, the impugned charge memo bearing Roc.No.

7976/2025/V2, dated 30.01.2026, issued by the respondent against the

petitioner herein, is hereby quashed and this writ petition is allowed. No

costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

17.06.2026

NCC :Yes / No

Index :Yes / No

Internet:Yes / No

krk

To:

The Director of Municipal Administration,

Directorate of Municipal Administration,

Chennai-28.

_______________

Page 19 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.5965 of 2026

MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.

krk

ORDER

IN

W.P.(MD) No.5965 of 2026

and

W.M.P.(MD) No.4990 of 2026

17.06.2026

_______________

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