SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 3424

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI
P.SELVARAJA – Appellant
Versus
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY – Respondent



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12-01-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI and WMP.Nos.55 & 58 of 2026 P.Selvaraja ..Petitioner(s)

Vs

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Co-operation, Food & Consumer Protection Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

2.The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, No.170, EVR High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010.

3.The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Coimbatore Region, K.K. Pudur, Coimbatore -641 038.

4.A.Palanisamy

5.The Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, No.293, M.K.N .Road, Alandur, Chennai-600 016.

6.S.Yasodha Davee ..Respondent(s)

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Ceriorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned charge memorandum issued by the incompetent authority, the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.880/2021/E3 dated 08.05.2023 and quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents to defer further proceedings on the charge memo, in the light of the orders already issued by this Court in W.P.No.19671 of 2023 dated 14.10.2024 in a similar case, to keep the disciplinary proceedings in abeyance till the completion of the criminal case, within a reasonable period as may be fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.T.Ranganathan For Respondent(s): Mr.K.Tamilvendan, GA for R1 to R3

ORDER

The impugned charge memorandum issued by the incompetent authority, the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.880/2021/E3 dated 08.05.2023, is put under challenge in the present Writ Petition. Further, the petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondents to defer further proceedings on the charge memo, in the light of the orders already passed by this Court in W.P.No.19671 of 2023 dated 14.10.2024 in a similar case, to keep the disciplinary proceedings in abeyance till the completion of the criminal case, within a time frame as fixed by this Court.

2. Heard the learned counsels on either side. With the consent of both sides, the present Writ Petition is taken up for hearing at the admission stage itself.

3. The brief facts of the case is as follows:-

3.1. The petitioner was appointed as Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies in the year 2010 through TNPSC and posted initially at Villupuram Circle and currently working at Pollachi Circle and his promotion as Joint Registrar is due in 2021-22 panel, however, his junior was promoted. One C.Shivaji, the Secretary of the Thalavaipalayam Primary Agricultural Society, Thondamuthur, Annamalai Taluk, Coimbatore got the approval of the fourth respondent /A.Palanisamy, the then Joint Registrar, Coimbatore Region, to fake claim persons under the Crop Loan Waiver Scheme, which was refused by the petitioner and in order to escape from the said misconduct, the petitioner was trapped in a corruption case and a case was registered against him, followed by suspension which was revoked by S.Arumugam, the then Co-operative Sub- Registrar, Pollachi circle, now at Thanjavur Region. The charge memo was issued by the Joint Registrar, Coimbatore Region on 08.05.2023 which is nothing a repetition of the FIR based on the complaint of the said C.Shivaji and the documents and witnesses are also recapitulation of the charge sheet filed by the DVAC in Spl.C.C.No.3 of 2024 dated 29.05.2024 which seems to be a second trial by the Joint Registrar, Coimbatore Region, which is impermissible and unsustainable in the eye of law and hence, the present Petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has challenged the proceedings on two folds, firstly, charge memo was not issued by the competent authority, where Government is the competent authority and the Joint Registrar has also participated in the trap proceedings and he may be a witness to the said occurrence which is not sustainable and secondly, the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the charge memo reflects the same set of facts set out in the FIR and the char

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top