IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on : 25.11.2025 Pronounced on : 28.11.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR W.P.No.34050 of 2019 and W.M.P.Nos.14595 of 2024 and 34650 of 2019 S.Mahesh ... Petitioner vs

1. The Principal Secretary to Government Department of Commercial Taxes & Registration Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

2. The Additional Chief Secretary/

Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Office of the Additional Chief Secretary/

Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, ‘Ezhilagam’, Chetput, Chennai – 600 005.

3. Sri.R.Sankaranarayanan The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Inquiry Officer, Tirupur Zone – 1, Erode Division, Tirupur – 1. … Respondents Prayer: Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the Charge Memo vide CD2/31108/2016-I, dated 03.06.2019 issued by the second respondent herein and quash the same as improper and barred under the principles of ‘Double Jeopardy’ and forbear the respondents 2 & 3, from proceeding with the allegations contained in the impugned Charge Memo, as well as the earlier Charge Memo No.CD2/31108/2016, dated 12.12.2017 and pass orders.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Radhakrishnan Senior Advocate for Mr.S.Kadarkarai For Respondents : Mr.C.Harsharan Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents and perused the records.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that he was issued with a charge memo dated 12.12.2017 containing three articles of charge that; on submitting explanation denying the articles of charge, the Enquiry Officer, without following the procedure for conducting enquiry, had recorded his statement whereby he had put forth his defence; and that the Enquiry Officer taking note of his defence, did not pass any order.

3. Petitioner contends that the disciplinary authority on coming to know of his defence in the disciplinary action initiated against him, have sought an opinion from the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption on the basis of who’s directions disciplinary action was initiated; and that Vigilance and Anti-

Corruption Department taking note of the article of charge framed against the petitioner, had opined that the said articles of charge are not properly framed and advised the respondents to issue fresh articles of charge.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that on the Vigilance Authorities providing the respondents with the new articles of charge, the respondent in supersession of charge memo dated 12.12.2017, had issued the impugned charge memo dated 03.06.2019; and that the petitioner had submitted his explanation to the same on 09.07.2019.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that on the petitioner submitting his explanation, the Disciplinary Authority appointed the same Enquiry Officer as appointed under the first charge memo dated 12.12.2017 to conduct enquiry and submit report to the charge memo dated 03.06.2019.

6. The petitioner contended that while under the first charge memo dated 12.12.2017 issued to the petitioner, only one person, who is said to have video recorded the petitioner demanding bribe for granting registration under the provisions of TNVAT Act, is shown as witness, in the second charge memo issued on 03.06.2019, eight persons including the person whose name was mentioned in the first charge memo are shown as witnesses. Thus, the respondents have sought to improvise the charge that was issued to the petitioner.

7. It is also contended that in the charge memo dated 03.06.2019, in the article of charge-1, it was claimed that the petitioner had instructed the proprietor of Tvl.Rudra Oils, Mallur, Salem, to hand over the money to Thiru.Meeran/private individual, while in the article of charge issued under the first charge memo dated 12.12.2017, it was stated that the petitioner had instructed M/s.Rudra Oils, to