IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12/11/2025 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K. SURENDER Writ Petition No.27195 of 2017 a n d W.M.P.Nos.1402 and 39033 of 2018 The Commandant AKS Panwar, TM Apt No.5 B, Vasavi Citrus Grove Seevaram, III Street, Ganapathy Nagar Perungudi Chennai 600 096. Now stationed as Commanding Officer Coast Guard Station Nizampatnam V & M Nizampatnam Dist Guntur (AP) 522314. … Petitioner Vs

1. The Government of Tamil Nadu Ministry of Defence rep. By Secretary to Government of India Room No.218 B Wing, Sena Bhawan New Delhi.

2. The Director General Director General Indian Coast Guard Coast Guard Headquarters National Stadium Complex New Delhi 110 001. 3. The Commander Coast Guard Headquarters Region (East)

Near Napier Bridge Chennai 600 009.

4. The Commander Coast Guard District Headquarters No.6 (AP)

Malkhapuram Vishakapatnam 600 009. … Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent made in Show Cause Notice No.OF/0303/0110-X dated 30^th August, 2017 and quash the same and direct the respondents to release and pay all the pension and service benefit entitled to the petitioner on attaining superannuation with interest @ 12% from

30/11/2018 till the date of payment.

For petitioner ... Mr.Prabhu Mukunth Arunkumar For respondents ... Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan Additional Solicitor General of India for Mr.V.Chandrasekaran - - - - -

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed to quash the order dated 30^th August, 2017 passed by the second respondent in Show Cause Notice No.OF/0303/0110-X.

2. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:-

The petitioner is an Ex-National Defence Academy and Ex-Indian Air Force Officer. The petitioner is the only Direct Officer with previous military service. The petitioner has been issued with a show cause notice by second respondent on the advice of the Ministry of Defence seeking his explanation for the lapses committed by him. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with the instant writ petition praying for the relief as stated therein.

3. Heard Mr.D.Prabhu Mukunth Arunkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Additional Solicitor General of India for the respondents.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Central Government alone has got power to issue any disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner since Section 11 (b) empowers the Director General or any Inspector General to dismiss or remove any person from the Coast Guard other than an Officer. The petitioner, who is serving as a Commandant is covered under definition 2 (q) which says that Officer means any person appointed or in pay as an Officer of the Coast Guard, but does not include the Subordinate Officer, sailor or other enrolled person.

5. The learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents would submit that as per Rule 33 of the Coast Guard (General) Rules, 1986, the petitioner is required to submit his complaint/representation to the Hon’ble Raksha Mantri/Defence Secretary through proper laid down service channel.

6. He further submits that ‘Superior Officer’ wherever used in the Coast Guard Act and Rules means an Officer or Subordinate Officer who is senior to that person under the Rules, or who is entitled under Coast Guard Act or Rules to give command to that person. As per Rule 22 of the Coast Guard (General) Rules 1986, second respondent is the competent authority to issue show cause notice to the petitioner.

7. In response to the arguments advanced by the learned Additional Solicitor General of India, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that ‘Superior Officer’ referred to is not with respect to the complainants but with respect to the Officer against whom the complaint lies.

8. Perused the materials available o