IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10-12-2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR &

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED WA No. 3703 of 2025

1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Services Wing, Ser 2(2) Section, Secretariat, Chennai 9

2. The Additional Chief Secretary/ Commissioner of Revenue Administration and Disaster Management, Ezhilagam, Chennai 5

3. The District Collector, Namakkal ..Appellant(s)

Vs

1. V.Jawahar S/o Venugopal, No.2, Gowtham Nagar Extension, Vazudhareddy village, Villupuram

2. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd, Thalamuthu Natarajan Building, 4th floor, Egmore, Chennai 8 ..Respondent(s)

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of the Letters Patent to set aside the Order dated 19.09.2022 passed in W.P.No.21770 of 2019 and allow the above Writ Appeal.

For Appellant(s): Mr. S. Yashwanth, Addl. Govt. Pleader For Respondent(s): Mr. S. Vijayakumar, Senior Counsel for Mr.K.N.Pandiyan for R1 Mr.K. Sathish Kumar, Senior Counsel for R2

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. SURESH KUMAR, J.)

This intra court appeal has been directed against the order passed by the Writ Court, dated 19.09.2022 made in W.P.No.21770 of 2019. Against the 1st respondent/writ petitioner, who is the District Manager of the TASMAC , there was a disciplinary proceedings by issuing a charge memo under Rule 17 (a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules.

2. Subsequently, after getting explanation from him for the same set of charges, 17(b) charge had been issued to him and that was questioned before the Writ Court. The charge was that the 1^st respondent/writ petitioner being a District Manager of TASMAC was instrumental in opening a TASMAC shop in an alternative new address or location as the earlier shop which was placed very close to the National Highway was closed pursuant to the order passed by the Honourable Supreme court.

3. Before opening the shop, in fact, the respondent/Writ petitioner has secured a permission from the District Collector, who permitted to start the shop in the new location. Since the new location is also in the objectionable area or prohibited area, as against the opening of the shop, a charge has been framed against him.

4. While examining the charge, the learned Judge has found that the charge has not been framed against him, as if he has violated any Rule or as if done with ulterior motive or in order to gain himself or to do some favour to third parties. Therefore, in the absence of any of these ingredients, it cannot be stated that he has violated any of the norms and therefore, the opening of the shop after getting approval from the District Collector cannot be construed as a violation and therefore, the charge memo has been issued arbitrarily and by total non application of mind to the fact that there was no dishonest motive on the part of the petitioner for opening of the shop despite Supreme Court’s order and hence the very framing of the charge is liable to be quashed and that was the stand taken by the learned Judge and it is reflected in the impugned order. 5. As against the said order when this appeal was moved, the learned Addl. Govt. Pleader appearing for the appellant would submit that being the District Manager of TASMAC, he must be aware of the Supreme Court’s order and whether knowingly or unknowingly if he opened the shop in the prohibited place, that would amount to violation and therefore, he is liable to be inflicted with the disciplinary proceedings initiated under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, hence such a procedural formalities being adopted by the employer/Disciplinary Authority may not be found fault with and this position has not been considered in a proper perspective by the learned Single Judge through the impugned order. Hence, It is liable to be interfered at the hands of the Division Bench in the instant appeal.

6.