IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 18.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI and W.M.P.No.5726 of 2026 N.Vinothkumar ... Petitioner Vs.

1.Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Rep.by its Secretary, TNPSC Road, VOC Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-600 003.

2.The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (ST), Vellore Division, Vellore. ....Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in pursuant to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in Procs.No.A2/1217/2020 dated 09.01.2025, discharging the petitioner from service and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal, unjust in law and consequently, direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all benefits.

For Petitioner : Ms.Hema for Mr.A.Manojkumar For Respondents : Mr.B.Vijay for R1 Ms.P.Selvi Government Advocate for R2

O R D E R

The writ petitioner challenges the impugned order dated 09.01.2025 in Procs.No.A2/1217/2020 discharging the petitioner from service and for a consequential direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all benefits.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was provisionally selected for the post of Assistant and was allotted to the Commercial Taxes Department by the first respondent. Pursuant to the same, he joined duty on 21.12.2018 as Assistant in the Office of the Joint Commissioner (ST), Vellore Division, Vellore. While so, alleging that the petitioner is involved in malpractice in Group-IIA Examination, a criminal case was registered against him and he was arrested on 04.02.2020. Since he was detained for more than 48 hours, he was placed under suspension by invoking Rule 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, by proceedings dated 06.02.2020 with effect from 04.02.2020. During the period of suspension, he was paid subsistence allowance. While so, the first respondent issued a Memorandum dated 30.12.2024, canceling the petitioner’s provisional selection on the allegation that CBI investigation revealed malpractice and his appointment was void ab initio. By the very same Memorandum, the petitioner was permanently debarred from participating in future examinations/recruitments conducted by TNPSC. Following the said Memorandum, the impugned order dated 09.01.2025 was passed by the second respondent canceling the order of appointment issued to the petitioner and discharging him from the said Post. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The petitioner relies upon the order passed by this Court in a batch of writ petitions involving the similar issue in W.P.Nos.2889 of 2025 etc., wherein, this Court has decided the ratio of removal of employee from service on the basis of the criminal case. This Court has exclusively held that every service rule provides for the manner in which an employee could be removed from service and the said service rules provide for a disciplinary mechanism by initiating a disciplinary proceeding and affording an opportunity of hearing to the employee through a full-fledged enquiry so as to enable the Department to establish the charge and for the employee to refute the charge and get himself/herself absolved from the charge. Without following the said procedure, removing an employee from service for any allegation, howsoever grave the allegation may be, is grossly perverse and impermissible. Relying on the said judgment and the ratio laid down by this Court, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks to quash the impugned order and allow the writ petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the second respondent.

5. It is not in dispute that though a criminal case has been registered against the petitioner alleging malpractice in the examination conducted by the first respondent, following the same, the petit