IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 27.11.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR W .P.No.3 1 717 of 20 1 9 A.Glory Gunaseeli … Petitioner Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by the Secretary to Government, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009. … Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the respondent in its letter No.4605/SW8(2)/2016-6, dated 01.11.201 9, and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Balamuralikrishnan For Respondent : Mr.T.Chandrasekaran, Spl. Govt. Pleader.

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that she was issued with a Charge Memo, dated 08.06.2020, containing seven articles of charges; that the inquiry officer appointed to conduct inquiry into the aforesaid charges has submitted his report on 12.05.2004, whereby the inquiry officer has found articles of charges Nos.3 and 5 as proved, while articles of charges Nos.1,2,4,6 and 7 as not proved; that even though the inquiry officer submitted a report way back in the month of May,2004, no action has been taken by the respondent thereon; that on the petitioner approaching this Court by filing a writ petition vide W.P.No.7465 of 2019, seeking quashing of the Charge Memo, the respondent filed a counter affidavit; and that this Court, by an order, dated 12.04.2019, directed the respondent to finalise the departmental proceedings.

3. The petitioner further contended that as no action was taken by the respondent pursuant to the orders of this Court, dated 12.04.2019, the petitioner issued a legal notice to the respondent on 23.07.2019, and thereafter filed a contempt petition vide Contempt Petition No.1713 of 2019 to punish the respondent for wilful disobedience, for not concluding the disciplinary proceedings within the time granted by this Court.

4. The petitioner further contends that when the contempt petition was taken up for admission, the respondent filed an affidavit on

29.10.2019, stating as follows :

3…

.

After careful examination the Government have decided to accept the enquiry officer’s report and to hold charge Nos.3 and 5 as proved and charge Nos.1,2,4,6 and 7 as not proved .

For the proven charges, the Government proposes to impose any of the penalties commensurate with the gravity of charges proved against the delinquent officer i.e., petitioner…’’

5. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the respondent having informed the court that the Government had decided to proceed against the petitioner on proved charges of Charge Nos.3 and 5 and was proposing to impose penalties commensurate with the gravity of the charges, could not have altered their position by issuing the impugned proceedings two days thereafter, recording disagreement on 01.11.2019 and proposing to proceed against the petitioner on all the articles of charges, which action, it is contended, is in the teeth of the affidavit filed into this Court.

6. Contending as above, the petitioner submits that the respondent, having informed this Court by affidavit to proceed only on the proved articles of charge i.e., charge Nos.3 and 5, cannot be allowed to issue the impugned proceedings and, thus, seeks for setting aside the same.

7. Counter affidavit on behalf of the sole respondent is filed.

8. The respondent, by the counter affidavit, contended that on the petitioner approaching this Court by filing Contempt Petition No.1713 of 2019, the Government examined the departmental disciplinary proceedings in detail from the available records and, after careful consideration of the report of the inquiry officer, agreed with the findings of the inquiry officer in so far it relates to articles of charges Nos.3 and 5. In so far as other charges are concerned, the inquiry officer simply h