IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 02.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI And W.M.P.Nos.910 and 912 of 2026 U.Sureshkumar ... Petitioner Vs.

The Commissioner, Tiruppur City Municipal Corporation, Tiruppur, Tiruppur District – 641 604. ... Respondent Prayer:

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records relating to the impugned order passed by the respondent in his proceedings Roc.No.4279/2024/C2, dated 27.08.2024 and quash the same and consequently directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service along with backwages, attendant benefits and other monetary benefits to the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prakasam For Respondent : Mr.S.Suresh Kumar Additional Advocate General Assisted By Mr.D.R.Arun Kumar

O R D E R

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records relating to the order passed by the respondent in his proceedings Roc.No.4279/2024/C2, dated 27.08.2024 and quash the same and consequently directi the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service along with backwages, attendant benefits and other monetary benefits to the petitioner.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Technical Assistant in the respondent Corporation on 17.05.2020 and was promoted as Junior Engineer on 12.12.2023 and based on the complaint made by one Kandasamy, a registered contractor of the Corporation, the petitioner was arrested by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Police and thereafter, the petitioner was suspended from service on 27.08.2024.

The petition made representation to the respondent seeking to permit him to join duty and since there was no response, filed W.P.No.125 of 2025 and the said writ petition was dismissed on 19.11.2025 on the ground that the petitioner did not challenge the suspension order and hence, the petitioner has filed this petition, challenging the suspension order.

3.This Court vide order dated 20.01.2026 issued direction to the respondent to appear before this Court to offer explanation as to why disciplinary proceedings have not been initiated against the petitioner, pursuant to which, the respondent appeared before this Court and submitted that he joined duty in June, 2025 and the records were not properly placed before him, thereby, he was not able to take action immediately, however, on receipt of notice from this Court, proceedings under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules were initiated against the petitioner and further submitted that charge memo will be issued to the petitioner and disciplinary proceedings will be concluded in terms of the procedure contemplated under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, as expeditiously as possible.

4.The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent submitted that since the petitioner is involved in a trap case, no leniency can be shown to the petitioner and further submitted that the disciplinary proceedings will be concluded as expeditiously as possible.

5.Mere prolonged suspension will not give right to the petitioner to claim permission to join duty. The allegation against the petitioner is that he demanded a sum of Rs.2 Lakhs from a contractor and such allegation cannot be viewed leniently. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned in this writ petition.

6.In view of the above, this Court directs the respondent to issue charge memo to the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and conclude the disciplinary proceedings in terms of the procedure contemplated under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, as expeditiously as possible, not later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of th