Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mumminenni Sudheer Kumar, J
Dr.A.Renganathan – Appellant
Versus
The Registrar Gandhigram Rural Institute (Deemed to be University) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. show cause notice quashed; inquiry must comply with legal standards. (Para 1 , 13) |
| 2. inquiry procedures must complete before notices are issued. (Para 3 , 4 , 11) |
| 3. parties must ensure cooperation during disciplinary procedures. (Para 9) |
O R D E R
The petitioner appearing in person submits that he is not pressing this writ petition as against the third respondent for the present.
2. In view of the above submission, this writ petition is dismissed as not pressed as against the third respondent, while granting liberty to the petitioner to implead the third respondent in future litigation, if circumstance warrants.
3. This writ petition has been filed challenging the show cause notice vide Ref.No.GRI-DTBU/Estt.3/DRH&S/2025-2026/4547, dated 09.02.2026, issued by the first respondent, whereby the petitioner is required to show cause as to why a major penalty under Rule 11 r/w Rule 19 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (in short, “CCS (CCA) Rules” should not be imposed upon him basing upon the inquiry report dated 06.01.2026.
4. The main ground of attack of the impugned show cause notice is on the ground that the inquiry procee
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
