IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 24.11.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN W .P.No. 2 4464 of 2023 C.Suresh Ananth : Petitioner Vs.

1.The Director, Tamil Nadu Fire and Rescue Services, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Salai, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.

2.The District Fire Officer, Tenkasi-Cutrallam Road, Tenkasi District, Tamil Nadu-627 811. 3.The Joint Director, Fire and Rescue Service, Rukmani Lakshmipatty Salai, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.

4.The District Fire Officer, Chennai Suburban District, Ambattur, Chennai-600 058. : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of proceedings in Na Ka N 3024/E2/2013 dated 28.07.2023 on the file of the first respondent and the consequential notice bearing No.Na Ka No.19944/Aa1/2022 dated 04.08.2023 on the file of the fourth respondent and to quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.Sarath Chandran For Respondents : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan Special Government Pleader

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the notice issued by the first respondent thereby called upon the petitioner for domestic enquiry.

2. The petitioner while he was holding the post of Assistant District Fire Officer in Palayamkottai, on a complaint, an FIR was registered in Crime No.2/AC/2013 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti- Corruption Special Unit-1 alleging that the petitioner demanded a bribe of Rs.30,000/- for issuance of no objection certificate to open an auto LPG gas station. On receipt of the said FIR, the petitioner was placed under suspension in criminal case culminated into criminal trial in CC No.6 of 2014 on the file of the Special Court for the cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai. After full fledged trial, the petitioner was acquitted from all the charges by the judgment dated 05.03.2019. After 1 and half years from the date of criminal court judgment, the petitioner was served with charge memo under Section 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal Rules), 1955 on 09.12.2020. Though the petitioner submitted detailed explanation, it was not satisfactory in nature and proceeded with disciplinary proceedings. An enquiry officer was appointed and conducted enquiry. Though the enquiry officer had held that all the charges were not proved, the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption by its letter dated 28.09.2022 requested the disciplinary authority to conduct de nova enquiry in the enquiry proceedings. It is unknown to law that the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department dictated terms to the disciplinary authority to conduct de nova enquiry.

3. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner was not served with any show cause notice on the strength of the enquiry officer to explain. Though the enquiry officer found that the charges were not proved against the petitioner, the disciplinary authority can very well disagree with the findings of the enquiry officer and issue show cause notice seeking the grounds for disagreeing with the enquiry officer. Without doing so, now the disciplinary authority ordered for de nova enquiry on the very same set of charges and issued notice to the petitioner which is impugned in this writ petition.

4. That apart, in the judgment passed by the criminal court in CC No.6 of

2014 dated 05.03.2019, this Court observed that the demand and acceptance has not been proved by the prosecution. The entire sequence of events seems to have happened to rope the accused by hook and by crook. Therefore, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt. The ingredients of the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner has not been met with. Further, the persons who had deposed before the criminal court as PW1 to PW10, the same persons had deposed before the enquiry officer. On the basis of their evidence, the enquiry officer held that all the charges wer