IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 04.12.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR M.Angamuthu S/o.A.Munusamy ... Petitioner vs.

1. The Commissioner Chennai City Municipal Corporation Ripon Buildings Chennai-600 003.

2. The Secretary to Government Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

3. The Appointment Committee Chennai City Municipal Corporation Chennai-600 003. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the 1st respondent issued in GDC No.E13/46318/2008 dated 21.09.2013 imposing the penalty of dismissal on the petitioner and the consequential orders passed by the 1st respondent rejecting the appeal of the petitioner in the proceedings issued in GDC.No.E13/46318/2008 dated 29.01.2014 and the rejection of the revision petition by the 2nd respondent in G.O.(D)No.159, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 12.03.2015 and quash the same and consequently, direct the 1st respondent to permit the petitioner to rejoin duty with all consequential benefits.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Ranganathan For Respondents : Mr.V.Veluchamy Additional Government Pleader, for R2 Mr.S.Gopinath Panel Advocate, for R1 & R3 *****

O R D E R

The petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:

To call for the records relating to the impugned order of the first respondent dated 21.09.2013 issued in GDC No. E13/46318/2008, whereby the penalty of dismissal was imposed on the petitioner, along with the consequential orders passed by the first respondent rejecting the petitioner’s appeal vide proceedings dated 29.01.2014 (GDC No. E13/46318/2008), and the rejection of the revision petition by the second respondent dated 12.03.2015 in G.O.(D) No. 159, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, and to quash the same, and consequently, direct the first respondent to permit the petitioner to rejoin duty with all consequential benefits.

2. By the aforementioned orders, the petitioner was dismissed from service. While working as a Conservancy Maistry, the petitioner was issued with a charge memo, which reads as follows:

“Charge No.1: That, when he worked as Conservancy Inspector at Dn.110, Zone VII, had falsely and fraudulently claimed salaries for the absented period of Conservancy Workers for the period from 16th June 2008 to 15th July 2008 and 16th July 2008 to 10th August and made Corporation to incur financial loss of Rs.77,132/.

Charge No.2 : That he wantonly and fraudulently made the disappearance of valuable records of attendance register pertaining to the claim of salary for the period from 11.08.2008 to 08.12.2008 and prevented the verification of pay drawn, particularly for Tmt.Pollammal.

Charge No.3 : That he has violated the Rule 20 of the Madras Corporation Servants’ Conduct Bye-Laws 1983.”

3. The petitioner submitted a response to the charge memo by letter dated 20.12.2011, denying the charges. The relevant portion of the explanation reads as follows:

“Charge No.1 : Thiru.M.Angamuthu, Conservancy Inspector when he worked at Dn.110, Zone VII has falsely and fraudulently claimed salaries for the absented period of conservancy workers for the period from 16.06.2008 to

16.07.2008 and 16.07.2008 to 10.08.2008 and made the Corporation to incur financial loss of Rs.77,132/-.

When I worked as Conservancy Inspector, Dn.110, Zone VII, I have not falsely and fraudulently claimed salaries for the absent period of conservancy workers for the period from 16th June 2008 to 15th July 2008 and 16th July 2008 to 10th August and not made any loss to Corporation to incur financial loss of Rs.77,132/-.

Charge No.2 : That M.Angamuthu, Conservancy Inspector had wantonly and fraudulently made the disappearance of the valuable records of attendance register pertaining to claim of salary for the period from 11.08.2008 to 08.12.2008 and prevented th