##PAGE1##

W.P. No.25215 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 03.02.2026

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI

W.P. No.25215 of 2025

and

W.M.P. Nos.37253, 28380 and 28383 of 2025

M.Sugumar Petitioner

Vs

1. The Director of Agriculture

Agriculture and Farmers Welfare

Department,

No.1, Walajah Road, PWD Estate,

Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

2.The Enquiry Officer / Additional

Director

Of Agriculture (Ma Aa Thee)

O/o. The Director of Agriculture,

Agriculture and Farmers Welfare

Department, No.1, Walajah Road,

PWD Estate, Chepauk,

Chennai-600 005. Respondents

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

praying to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records

relating to the proceedings of the Director of Agriculture, Chepauk,

Chennai-600 005, the first respondent herein made in Ref.

No.VCS2/61199/2018 (1) dated 08.05.2024, quash the same or in the alternate

1/9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 07:27:14 pm )

W.P. No.25215 of 2025

direct the respondents herein to defer all further proceedings of the charge

against the petitioner till finality is reached in the Criminal case in Special C.C.

No.8 of 2022 on the file of the Special Court for cases under the Prevention of

Corruption Act, Coimbatore.

For petitioner : Mr.K. Rajkumar

For respondents : Mr.R.U. Dinesh Rajkumar

Addl. Govt. Pleader for R1 & R2

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the Charge Memo issued by

the 1^st respondent in Ref. No. VCS2/61199/2018(1), dated 08.05.2024 and to

quash the same or in the alternative to defer the departmental disciplinary

proceedings till the finality of the criminal case in Spl.C.C.No.8 of 2022 on the

file of the Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Coimbatore.

2. Brief facts :-

a) It is stated that the petitioner, while serving as Joint Director of

Agriculture, Coimbatore, was alleged to have demanded illegal gratification of

Rs.4,00,000/- for issuance of “Non Objection Certificate” for conversion of wet

land into non-agricultural purpose and to have received Rs.1,50,000/-. Based on

the complaint, a trap was organised by the officials of the Department of

Vigilance and Anti-Corruption and the petitioner was allegedly caught red-

handed on 22.05.2018.

2/9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 07:27:14 pm )

W.P. No.25215 of 2025

b) An FIR in Crime No.5 of 2018 was registered for offences under

Section 7(a) and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988. Consequent thereto, the petitioner was placed under

suspension on the verge of his superannuation on 30.06.2018 and was not

permitted to retire from service. Subsequently, a charge sheet was filed in

Spl.C.C.No.8 of 2022 before the Special Court under the Prevention of

Corruption Act, Coimbatore.

c) While so, the 1^st respondent issued the impugned Charge Memo dated

08.05.2024 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and

Appeal) Rules alleging violation of Rule 20(1) & (2) of the Tamil Nadu

Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1973.

d) Aggrieved by the simultaneous initiation of departmental proceedings

on the very same set of allegations, witnesses and documents, the present writ

petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned charge

memo dated 08.05.2024 has been issued on the very same set of allegations,

witnesses and documents which form the subject matter of the pending criminal

case in Spl.C.C.No.8 of 2022 registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988. The charges in both proceedings are identical and arise out of the same

trap proceedings dated 22.05.2018.

3/9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 07:27:14 pm )

W.P. No.25215 of 2025

4. He further contended that if the departmental enquiry is allowed to

proceed simultaneously, the petitioner would be compelled to disclose his

defence strategy, which would seriously prejudice the petitioner’s defence in the

criminal trial