IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 16.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2015 R.Parthiban Assistant Nagapattinam Municipality Nagapattinam. ... Petitioner vs.

1. The Commissioner Cuddalore Municipality Cuddalore.

2. The Commissioner of Municipal Administration Chepauk Chennai-600 005.

3. The Secretary to Government Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. … Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned order of the 2^nd respondent issued in Na.Ka.No.14289/11/K2 dated 30.08.2011 and the consequential order passed by the 3^rd respondent in G.O.(D)No.396, MAWS Department, dated 29.10.2014 and quash the same and consequently, direct the 2^nd respondent to consider the name of the petitioner for promotion as Superintendent in Class V posts in the panel prepared for the year 2010-2011 on par with his juniors with all service benefits.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Ranganathan For Respondents : Mr.P.Chinnadurai, for R1 Mr.V.Veluchamy, Additional Government Pleader for R2 & R3 *****

O R D E R

The captioned Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated

30.08.2011 bearing Reference Na.Ka.No.14289/11/K2 issued by the second respondent, whereby the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of stoppage of next annual increment for three months without cumulative effect. The petitioner also challenges the order dated 29.10.2014 bearing Reference G.O.D.No.396, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (ME-1) Department, issued by the third respondent, whereby the order of punishment imposed on the petitioner was confirmed.

2. The petitioner, while serving as Assistant in the respondent Municipality, was issued a charge memo dated 12.11.2007 containing five charges. Charge No.1 relates to the alleged failure to properly hand over charge and the sending of the almirah key after four days through tapal. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the show cause notice denying all the allegations. The Disciplinary Authority, not being satisfied with the explanation, initiated departmental enquiry against the petitioner.

3. Before the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner appeared and submitted his defence. The Enquiry Officer, upon considering the materials on record and the defence put forth by the petitioner, held that Charge No.1 stood proved and Charge Nos.2 to 5 were not proved. Thereafter, a second show cause notice was issued, to which the petitioner submitted a further explanation. The Disciplinary Authority, after considering the enquiry report and the further explanation, passed the impugned order of punishment. The said order was confirmed by the third respondent – Appellate Authority.

4. Mr. T. Ranganathan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the enquiry was conducted under Rule 8(2) of the Tamil Nadu Municipal Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Rules”). However, the charge memo was not accompanied by Annexure-IV containing the list of witnesses, which is mandatory. He further submitted that the first respondent, without properly considering the further explanation, passed the impugned order, which is in violation of the principles of natural justice and is arbitrary and discriminatory. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and confirmed by the Appellate Authority is not legally sustainable.

5. In response, Mr. P. Chinnadurai, learned counsel for the first respondent, submitted that the materials on record clearly establish that the petitioner deliberately failed to hand over charge and the keys after his transfer and that, in the absence of any perversity or arbitrariness in the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, the impugned order of punishment does not warrant interference.

6. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the