PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned charge memo/proceedings dated 30.05.2025 issued by the second respondent in Department wise Serial No.1/2025 and the consequential proceedings in D.E.13/2025 dated 12.08.2025 issued by the third respondent and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to pay all the monetary benefits including contributory pension amount, earned leave, special provident fund, leave encashment and all other attendant benefits to the petitioner.

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned charge memo/proceedings dated 30.05.2025 issued by the second respondent in Department wise Serial No.1/2025 and the consequential proceedings in D.E.13/2025 dated 12.08.2025 issued by the third respondent and consequential direction to the respondents to pay all the monetary benefits including contributory pension amount, earned leave, special provident fund, leave encashment and all other attendant benefits to the petitioner.

The case of the writ petitioner is that she was working as a Junior Assistant in the District Munsif Court, Tiruchendur, and retired from service on 30.05.2025. On the date of her retirement, a charge memo appears to have been issued alleging that, while transmitting the vernacular records to the High Court in S.A.(MD) No.323 of 2018, one document, namely Ex.A8–Passport, had not been forwarded. Consequently, charges were framed against her under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Thereafter, by proceedings in D.E. No.13 of 2025 dated 12.08.2025, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the charges. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit, wherein it has been stated that the charge memo was issued against the writ petitioner for alleged dereliction of duty under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. It is further stated that, while transmitting the vernacular records to the High Court in connection with S.A.(MD) No.323 of 2018, one material document, namely Ex.A8–Passport, was omitted to be forwarded due to the negligence of the petitioner. According to the respondents, the omission came to light only at a later stage and, therefore, disciplinary proceedings were initiated in accordance with the relevant service rules. It has also been contended that the charges framed against the petitioner are grave in nature and warrant a detailed enquiry. Hence, an Enquiry Officer was appointed by proceedings in D.E. No.13 of 2025 dated 12.08.2025 to enquire into the allegations. The respondents would further contend that the writ petition, challenging the charge memo and the consequential appointment of the Enquiry Officer at the threshold stage, is premature and not maintainable in law.

We have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the records carefully.

Normally, once a charge memo is issued, the Court will not interfere with the same unless it is shown that the proceedings are vitiated by mala fides or have been initiated for extraneous reasons. However, in the present case, the admitted fact remains that the petitioner was permitted to retire from service on 30.05.2025 on attaining the age of superannuation. On the very same day, the impugned charge memo came to be issued alleging that, while transmitting the vernacular records to the High Court, one of the documents was found missing. It is now brought to the notice of this Court that the said document has subsequently been traced out and is presently available.

It is not the case of the respondents that the document had been deliberately removed, destroyed, or tampered with from the case bundle. The allegation against the petitioner is onl