1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 27.01.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

W.P

No.2198 of 2023

K.Chindhanai Selvam

Petitioner

vs.

1.The Secretary to Government,

Commercial Taxes and Registration Department,

Government of Tamil Nadu,

Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

2.The Inspector General of Registration,

100, Santhome High Road,

Chennai.

Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for

issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pass final

orders on the departmental proceedings initiated against the Petitioner vide

revised charge memo No.50605 /V3 / 2014 dated 18.12.2014(forwarded vide

order dated 23.01.2015 by the 2nd respondent) within a time frame to be

fixed by this Honble Court and Consequently direct the respondents to permit

the Petitioners to retire from service with all pensionary benefits.

For Petitioner

: Mr.V.Vijayashankar

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

2

For Respondents

: Mr.D.Ravichander

Special Government Pleader

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed for issue of writ of mandamus

directing the respondents to pass final orders on the departmental

proceedings initiated against the petitioner through Charge Memo dated

18.12.2014, within a time frame fixed by this Court.

2.Heard Mr.V.Vijayashankar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the petitioner and Mr.D.Ravichander, learned Special Government Pleader

appearing on behalf of the respondents.

3.The petitioner had already filed W.P.(MD)No.21224 of 2014

challenging the impugned Charge Memo dated 18.12.2014. The writ petition

was taken up for final hearing by this Court and the following order was

passed:

3.Annexure-II to the charge memo provides list of

documents and the allegations set out in the charge memo are

undoubtedly serious in nature, warranting a detailed enquiry.

Thus, there is no infirmity in the charge memo and the writ

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

3

petitioner instead of participating in the process of enquiry to

establish his innocence or otherwise, has chosen to file this

Writ Petition, mainly on the ground that he was performing the

duties and responsibilities, as a quasi judicial authority and

therefore, no charge memo can be issued against him.

4.This Court as well the Hon'ble Apex Court repeatedly

held that the quasi judicial authorities are also amenable to

departmental disciplinary proceedings. Even while functioning

as quasi judicial authority, if there is any dereliction,

negligence, misconduct or financial loss are identified, the

competent authorities are empowered to conduct an enquiry

and cull out the truth, regarding the incident and thereafter,

take a decision on merits and in accordance with law. There is

no absolute exemption for the quasi judicial authorities from

the departmental disciplinary proceedings. Thus, the ground

raised that the writ petitioner was performing duties and

responsibilities of quasi judicial authority, is of no avail to him

5.The writ petitioner was holding the responsible post in

the cadre of District Registrar. Thus, he has to perform his

duties and responsibilities with utmost care and devotion of

duty. During the course of the performance, if any negligence,

misconduct and financial loss are identified, then all suitable

actions are to be initiated against him. The legal principles in

this regard are settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in many

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

4

decisions.

6.Under these circumstances, this Court is of the

considered opinion that the present Writ Petition filed

challenging the charge memo, cannot be entertained. The writ

petitioner has to participate in the process of enquiry and

establish his innocence or otherwise by producing document

and adducing evidence, if required.

7.Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that there is no

in