RAMESH vs THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,

2026:MHC:4430
WP No. 36210 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
WP Nos. 36210 and17589 of 2024
CNR:{HCMA012150902024}
and
WMP Nos. 19377, 39092 and 39188 of 2024
W.P.No.36210 of 2024
Ramesh
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Secretary to Government,
Micro, Mini and Small Industries Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai -9.
2. The Industries Commissioner,
Directorate Of Industries And Commerce,
Sidco Office Building,
Guindy, Chennai -32.
3. The Enquiry Officer/General Manager,
District Industries Centre, Collectorate
Complex, Kancheepuram.
4. S.Venkatesan (Enquiry Officer),
Joint Director Of Industries and Commerce
Collectorae Complex, Kancheepuram.
..Respondent(s)
WP No. 17589 of 2024
CNR:{HCMA011077522024}
Ramesh
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
__________
Page1 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 06:42:44 pm )

2026:MHC:4430
WP No. 36210 of 2024
1. The Secretary to Government
Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (EII(2)
Department Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2. The Industries Commissioner
Directorate Of Industries and Commerce,
SIDCO Office Building,
Guindy, Chennai-32.
3. The Enquiry Officer / General Manager,
District Industries Centre,
Collectorate Complex, Kancheepuram.
4. S.Venkatesan
Joint Director Of Industries and Comemrce,
Collectorate Complex, Kancheepuram.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer in W.P.No.36210 of 2024:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,
calling for the records of the 1st Respondent in connection with the Impugned
letter No. 2083/E11(2)/2020-18 dt. 18.10.2024 enclosing a copy of the EO
report furnished by the 3rd respondent in his RC.No. 3422/Gm-per/2023 dt.
28.5.2024 and quash the same and direct the respondents to furnish the
documents mentioned in annexure 3 and 4 to the charge memo dt. 15.4.2021
and thereafter conduct the oral enquiry afresh by examining all the witnesses
and afford reasonable opportunity to the Petitioner to cross examine the
witnesses in person in a manner known to law.
Prayer in WP No. 17589 of 2024:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of declaring the enquiry of
witnesses conducted by the 3rd and 4th respondent dated 23.04.2024 and
21.05.2024 pursuant to the charge memo proceedings issued in
Rc.No.10768/EG2/ 2018-2 dt.15.4.2021 as null and void and consequently
__________
Page2 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 06:42:44 pm )

2026:MHC:4430
WP No. 36210 of 2024
direct the respondents to furnish all the documents mentioned in Annexure III
and IV to the charge memo dt.15.4.2021 to the petitioner and thereafter to
conduct the enquiry afresh by examine the witnesses in the manner known to
law and grant such other further relief.
For Petitioner(s):
in both W.Ps
Mr.K.Venkataramani,
Senior Counsel
for Mr.M.Muthappan
For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Ilamvaludhi,
Special Government Pleader (for R1 to R3)
No appearance (for R4)
COMMON ORDER
W.P.No.17589 of 2024 has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of
Declaration, declaring the enquiry conducted by the third and fourth
respondents, examining the witnesses on 23.04.2024 and 21.05.2024, as null
and void.
2. W.P.No.36210 of 2024 has been filed challenging the enquiry report
dated 28.05.2024. While the Writ Petition challenging the procedure followed
in the enquiry proceedings was pending, the enquiry authority, without awaiting
the outcome of the said Writ Petition, proceeded with the enquiry and submitted
its report to the disciplinary authority on 28.05.2024. In view of the above fact,
both the Writ Petitions are interconnected and intertwined. Hence, both the Writ
Petitions are taken up together for common disposal.
__________
Page3 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 06:42:44 pm )

2026:MHC:4430
WP No. 36210 of 2024
3. It is relevant to mention that, if the Writ Petition in W.P.No.17589 of
2024 is allowed, there would be no necessity to independently consider the
pleadings in W.P.No.36210 of 2024, as the subsequent Writ Petition is only a
consequence of the proceedings impugned in W.P.No.17589 of 2024.
4. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present Writ
Petitions are that the petitioner was working as a General Manager in the
District Industries Centre, Dharmapuri. While so, one Mr.S.Ramkumar, an
entrepreneur, approached the District Industries Centre seeking release of
subsidy. At that juncture, one N.M.Manojdharan, an Assistant Engineer and an
officer subordinate to the petitioner, allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs.35,000/-
for releasing the subsidy amount of Rs.3.75 lakhs. The complainant lodged a
complaint alleging that, when the said N.M.Manojdharan demanded the bribe,
the petitioner, being his superior officer, did not take any action and, on the
contrary, negotiated between them to reduce the bribe amount from Rs.35,000/-
to Rs.25,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant, viz., S.Ramkumar,
lodged a complaint before the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing. Pursuant
thereto, a trap was organised, and, as per the trap proceedings, the complainant,
S.Ramkumar, handed over the bribe amount to N.M.Manojdharan on
19.04.2018.
__________
Page4 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 06:42:44 pm )

2026:MHC:4430
WP No. 36210 of 2024
4.1. In the said trap, N.M.Manojdharan was caught red-handed.
According to the prosecution, the petitioner had also abetted the commission of
the offence. Both N.M.Manojdharan and the petitioner were remanded to
judicial custody on 19.04.2018. Consequent upon his arrest, the petitioner was
placed under suspension. Though the petitioner challenged the suspension, the
learned Single Judge revoked the same. However, the Division Bench
subsequently granted a stay of the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Thereafter, the disciplinary authority issued a charge memorandum dated
15.04.2021, containing three charges, under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil
Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, alleging receipt of a bribe amount and,
consequently, bringing disrepute to the institution.
4.2. In the Writ Appeal, a direction was issued to conclude the
disciplinary proceedings within a period of four months. Pursuant thereto, the
disciplinary authority appointed an Enquiry Officer, who conducted the enquiry.
According to the petitioner, the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with
the principles of natural justice. Hence, the petitioner filed W.P.No.17589 of
2024. During the pendency of the said Writ Petition, notwithstanding the fact
that the very procedure adopted in the disciplinary proceedings was under
challenge, the Enquiry Officer concluded the enquiry and submitted the enquiry
report on 28.05.2024. The said enquiry report was subsequently challenged in
another Writ Petition, viz., W.P.No.36210 of 2024.
__________
Page5 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 06:42:44 pm )

2026:MHC:4430
WP No. 36210 of 2024
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend
that the enquiry was conducted in utter violation of the principles of natural
justice. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the Enquiry
Officer conducted himself as a prosecutor and that he examined and cross-
examined the witnesses. It is also his contention that the documents relied upon
by the management to prove the charges were not furnished to the petitioner,
thereby causing serious prejudice to the petitioner while submitting his
explanation. It is further contended that many of the witnesses were examined
behind the back of the petitioner. The learned Senior Counsel would also
contend that, though certain witnesses were initially examined, their statements
were subsequently eschewed, without assigning any reasons, and a fresh
enquiry was conducted.
6.1. It is also his contention that, whenever the witnesses were examined,
their statements were not furnished to the petitioner so as to enable him to cross-
examine them. The sum and substance of the submissions made by the learned
Senior Counsel is that there was an utter violation of the principles of natural
justice. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would further
__________
Page6 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 06:42:44 pm )

2026:MHC:4430
WP No. 36210 of 2024
submit that, though there were two delinquents, an independent domestic
enquiry was conducted against the petitioner without following Rule 9-A of the
Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, which is also a
blatant violation of the prescribed procedure. Hence, he prayed to allow the
Writ Petitions. In support of his contentions, the learned Senior Counsel relied
upon the following judgments:-
(i) State of U.P. v. Shatrughan Lal and another , reported
in (1988) 6 SCC 651;
(ii) State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Saroj Kumar
Sinha , reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772;
(iii) Kashinath Dikshita v. Union of India and others ,
reported in (1986) 3 SCC 229; and
(iv) The State of Punjab v. Bhagat Ram , reported in
(1975) 1 SCC 155.
7. Per contra, the said contentions were stoutly opposed by the learned
Special Government Pleader appearing for the first to third respondents. He
would contend that the respondent authorities had followed all the procedures
contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal)
Rules and that the petitioner was provided with sufficient opportunity and the
principles of natural justice were followed in it’s entirety. It is his contention
that, if the petitioner had any grievance regarding non-production of documents
or non-examination of witnesses in his presence, he ought to have raised the
__________
Page7 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 06:42:44 pm )

2026:MHC:4430
WP No. 36210 of 2024
same at the time of examination of the witnesses. Whereas, the petitioner,
having submitted his explanation and cross-examined the witnesses without any
demur, cannot raise such a contention as an afterthought. He would further
submit that, though the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contends that
Rule 9-A of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules has
been violated, the said Rule has no application to the present case, as the
enquiry pertains to a delinquent belonging to the same department. Hence, he
prayed to dismiss these Writ Petitions.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on
either side.
9. Though the petitioner has challenged the enquiry report, as rightly
contended by the learned Senior Counsel, the veracity of the enquiry report
need not be gone into at the first instance, as the validity or otherwise of the
enquiry report depends upon the decision to be taken in the Writ Petition in
W.P.No.17589 of 2024 regarding compliance with the principles of natural
justice in conducting the domestic enquiry. It is the specific contention of the
learned Senior Counsel that the enquiry proceedings conducted between
23.04.2024 and 21.05.2024 were not in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Civil
Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.
__________
Page8 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 06:42:44 pm )

2026:MHC:4430
WP No. 36210 of 2024
10. The first and foremost contention of the petitioner is that the
documents relied upon by the management to prove the charges were not
furnished to the petitioner. In the present case, the charge memorandum was
issued on 15.04.2021, and the petitioner had submitted his reply on 11.05.2021.
According to the charge memorandum, the petitioner had relied upon as many
as 29 documents to prove the charges, and had also cited as many as 18
witnesses. Even according to the admission made in paragraph 5 of the counter
statement, the aforesaid documents were furnished to the petitioner only on
03.05.2024, that too, pursuant to a request made by the petitioner through an
e-mail.
11. In this regard, it is relevant to mention that, on 23.04.2024, the
petitioner was provided with questionnaires by the Enquiry Officer, seeking
answers from the petitioner. It is relevant to mention that the procedure
contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal)
Rules does not provide for any mechanism whereby a questionnaire is furnished
to the delinquent by the Enquiry Officer, to elicit answers. It is relevant to
mention that, in order to put forth his defence, the delinquent must be provided
with an opportunity to depose before the disciplinary authority. Therefore, the
conduct of the Enquiry Officer in eliciting answers from the petitioner as a chief
__________
Page9 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 06:42:44 pm )

2026:MHC:4430
WP No. 36210 of 2024
examination, by way of a questionnaire, coupled with the non-furnishing of the
documents relied upon in the charge memorandum for nearly three years, would
clearly disclose and demonstrate a blatant violation of the principles of natural
justice.
12. The next contention put forth by the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner is that many of the witnesses were not examined in the presence of
the petitioner. In this regard, in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the affidavit, the
petitioner has contended that the Enquiry Officer had furnished questionnaires
and the statements of nine witnesses were examined on 23.04.2024, and that
such statements were recorded in the absence of the petitioner. Though the said
statement was traversed in paragraph 7 of the counter statement, the specific
contention of the petitioner that the management witnesses were not examined
in petitioner’s presence has not been disputed. Therefore, this Court can safely
arrive at a conclusion that the witnesses relied upon by the management were
not examined in the presence of the petitioner.
13. Nextly, whenever disciplinary proceedings are conducted, it is
expected that the witnesses would be examined in the presence of the delinquent
or his representative. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner had
deliberately avoided the enquiry, thereby necessitating the examination of
__________
Page10 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 06:42:44 pm )

2026:MHC:4430
WP No. 36210 of 2024
witnesses in an ex parte manner. Therefore, in the absence of any recording to
the effect that the witnesses were examined only on account of the non-
cooperation of the petitioner, such examination will not pass test of natural
justice. Similarly, the enquiry report, which is impugned in the other Writ
Petition, does not contain any reference to the alleged non-cooperation on the
part of the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the very
conduct of examination of the witnesses in the absence of the petitioner would
also vitiate the enquiry proceedings.
14. The other contention put forth by the learned Senior Counsel is with
regard to the conduct of the Enquiry Officer. According to the learned Senior
Counsel, the Enquiry Officer had acted as a prosecutor. To substantiate the
same, he has also produced the statements of witnesses recorded by the Enquiry
Officer. Upon perusal of the said statements, this Court would able to find out
that the Enquiry Officer, instead of conducting himself within the bounds of his
role as an Enquiry Officer, had gone over brand beyond the permissible limits
and conducted himself as a prosecutor. In this regard, the learned Senior
Counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Saroj
Kumar Sinha (cited supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that
the Enquiry Officer should not act as a prosecutor. It has been further been held
that the Enquiry Officer cannot assume the dual role of a Judge as well as a
prosecutor.
__________
Page11 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 06:42:44 pm )

2026:MHC:4430
WP No. 36210 of 2024
15. Though the aforesaid judgment lays down the principles governing
the conduct of an Enquiry Officer, in a subsequent decision, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has elaborately considered the manner in which an enquiry may
be conducted in cases where a Presenting Officer has not been appointed by the
disciplinary authority. There is no mandatory requirement that a Presenting
Officer must be appointed in every case. In such circumstances, the Enquiry
Officer may conduct the enquiry, but only in the capacity as a Judge. Therefore,
in order to ascertain whether the Enquiry Officer had acted neutrally, the nature
of the proceedings conducted by the Enquiry Officer becomes relevant.
16. In this regard, it is appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ram Lakhan Sharma , reported in (2018) 7
SCC 670. The relevant portions of paragraphs 31, 32, 33 and 36 of the said
judgment are extracted hereunder:-
“ 31. A Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court
speaking through R.V. Raveendran, C.J. (as he then was) had
occasion to consider the question of vitiation of the inquiry
when the Enquiry Officer starts himself acting as prosecutor in
Union of India v. Mohd. Naseem Siddiqui [ Union of India v.
Mohd. Naseem Siddiqui , ILR 2004 MP 821] . In the above
case the Court considered Rule 9(9)( c ) of the Railway
Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. The Division
Bench while elaborating fundamental principles of natural
justice enumerated the seven well-recognised facets in para 7
__________
Page12 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 06:42:44 pm )

2026:MHC:4430
WP No. 36210 of 2024
of the judgment which is to the following effect:
“ 7 . One of the fundamental principles of natural justice is that no
man shall be a judge in his own cause. This principle consists of
seven well-recognised facets:
( i ) The adjudicator shall be impartial and free
from bias,
( ii ) The adjudicator shall not be the prosecutor,
( iii ) The complainant shall not be an
adjudicator,
( iv ) A witness cannot be the adjudicator,
( v ) The adjudicator must not import his personal
knowledge of the facts of the case while inquiring into
charges,
( vi ) The adjudicator shall not decide on the
dictates of his superiors or others,
( vii ) The adjudicator shall decide the issue with
reference to material on record and not reference to
extraneous material or on extraneous considerations.
If any one of these fundamental rules is breached, the
inquiry will be vitiated.”
32. The Division Bench further held that where the Enquiry
Officer acts as Presenting Officer, bias can be presumed. Para
9 is as follows:
“ 9 . A domestic inquiry must be held by an unbiased
person who is unconnected with the incident so that he
can be impartial and objective in deciding the subject-
matters of inquiry. He should have an open mind till
the inquiry is completed and should neither act with
bias nor give an impression of bias. Where the Enquiry
Officer acts as the Presenting Officer, bias can be
presumed. At all events, it clearly gives an impression
of bias. An Enquiry Officer is in position of a judge or
adjudicator. The Presenting Officer is in the position of
__________
Page13 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 06:42:44 pm )

2026:MHC:4430
WP No. 36210 of 2024
a prosecutor. If the Enquiry Officer acts as a Presenting
Officer, then it would amount to Judge acting as the
prosecutor. When the Enquiry Officer conducts the
examination-in-chief of the prosecution witnesses and
leads them through the facts so as to present the case of
the disciplinary authority against the employee or
cross-examines the delinquent employee or his
witnesses to establish the case of the
employer/disciplinary authority evidently, the Enquiry
Officer cannot be said to have an open mind. The very
fact that he presents the case of the employer and
supports the case of the employer is sufficient to hold
that the Enquiry Officer does not have an open mind.”
33. The Division Bench after elaborately considering the
issue summarised the principles in para 16 which is to the
following effect:
“ 16 . We may summarise the principles thus:
( i ) The Enquiry Officer, who is in the position of
a Judge shall not act as a Presenting Officer, who is in
the position of a prosecutor.
( ii ) It is not necessary for the disciplinary
authority to appoint a Presenting Officer in each
and every inquiry. Non-appointment of a Presenting
Officer, by itself will not vitiate the inquiry.
( iii ) The Enquiry Officer, with a view to arrive at
the truth or to obtain clarifications, can put questions to
the prosecution witnesses as also the defence witnesses.
In the absence of a Presenting Officer, if the Enquiry
Officer puts any questions to the prosecution witnesses
to elicit the facts, he should thereafter permit the
delinquent employee to cross-examine such witnesses
on those clarifications.
( iv ) If the Enquiry Officer conducts a regular
examination-in-chief by leading the prosecution
witnesses through the prosecution case, or puts leading
questions to the departmental witnesses pregnant with
answers, or cross-examines the defence witnesses or
__________
Page14 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 06:42:44 pm )

2026:MHC:4430
WP No. 36210 of 2024
puts suggestive questions to establish the prosecution
case employee, the Enquiry Officer acts as prosecutor
thereby vitiating the inquiry.
( v ) As absence of a Presenting Officer by itself
will not vitiate the inquiry and it is recognised that
the Enquiry Officer can put questions to any or all
witnesses to elicit the truth, the question whether an
Enquiry Officer acted as a Presenting Officer, will
have to be decided with reference to the manner in
which the evidence is let in and recorded in the
inquiry.
Whether an Enquiry Officer has merely acted only as an
Enquiry Officer or has also acted as a Presenting Officer
depends on the facts of each case. To avoid any
allegations of bias and running the risk of inquiry being
declared as illegal and vitiated, the present trend appears
to be to invariably appoint Presenting Officers, except in
simple cases. Be that as it may.”
36. Thus, the question as to whether the Enquiry Officer
who is supposed to act independently in an inquiry has
acted as prosecutor or not is a question of fact which has to
be decided on the facts and proceedings of a particular
case. In the present case we have noticed that the High Court
had summoned the entire inquiry proceedings and after
perusing the proceedings the High Court came to the
conclusion that the Enquiry Officer himself led the
examination-in-chief of the prosecution witness by putting
questions. The High Court further held that the Enquiry Officer
acted himself as prosecutor and Judge in the said disciplinary
enquiry. The above conclusion of the High Court has already
been noticed from paras 9 and 10 of the judgment of the High
Court giving rise to Civil Appeal No. 2608 of 2012.”
(emphasis supplied)
__________
Page15 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 06:42:44 pm )

2026:MHC:4430
WP No. 36210 of 2024
17. As per the aforesaid ratio, the conduct of the Enquiry Officer during
the enquiry proceedings has to be examined to arrive at such a conclusion. In
the present case, several documents were relied upon by the petitioner, and all
those documents were marked by the Enquiry Officer himself. Furthermore,
upon perusal of the depositions recorded by the Enquiry Officer, it clearly
discloses that the Enquiry Officer had exceeded his limits and acted as a
prosecutor. In this regard, it is relevant to mention that, whenever the witnesses
appeared before the Enquiry Officer, it appears that the Enquiry Officer
furnished a questionnaire containing leading questions, to which the witnesses
answered separately.
18. Upon perusal of the aforesaid manner of recording evidence, it clearly
vindicates the contention raised by the petitioner that no witnesses were
examined in the presence of the delinquent. Furthermore, as per the
communication sent by the Enquiry Officer through his e-mail dated
13.05.2024, it appears that all the chief examination were furnished to the
petitioner on a single date and not on the respective dates of examination qua on
which day they were recorded. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the
enquiry was not conducted in the manner contemplated under the Tamil Nadu
Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.
__________
Page16 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 06:42:44 pm )

2026:MHC:4430
WP No. 36210 of 2024
19. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Shatrughan Lal (cited supra), wherein, in paragraphs 4 and
5, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-
“4. Now, one of the principles of natural justice is that a
person against whom an action is proposed to be taken has to
be given an opportunity of hearing. This opportunity has to be
an effective opportunity and not a mere pretence. In
departmental proceedings where charge-sheet is issued and the
documents which are proposed to be utilised against that
person are indicated in the charge-sheet but copies thereof are
not supplied to him in spite of his request, and he is, at the
same time, called upon to submit his reply, it cannot be said
that an effective opportunity to defend was provided to him.
(See: Chandrama Tewari v. Union of India [1987 Supp SCC
518 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 226 : (1987) 5 ATC 369 : AIR 1988 SC
117] ; Kashinath Dikshita v. Union of India [(1986) 3 SCC 229
: 1986 SCC (L&S) 502 : (1986) 1 ATC 176 : AIR 1986 SC
2118] ; State of U.P. v. Mohd. Sharif [(1982) 2 SCC 376 :
1982 SCC (L&S) 253 : AIR 1982 SC 937] .)
5. In High Court of Punjab & Haryana v. Amrik Singh
[1995 Supp (1) SCC 321 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 471 : (1995) 29
ATC 311] it was indicated that the delinquent officer must be
supplied copies of documents relied upon in support of the
charges. It was further indicated that if the documents are
voluminous and copies cannot be supplied, then such officer
must be given an opportunity to inspect the same, or else, the
principle of natural justice would be violated.”
According to the aforesaid ratio, whenever an enquiry is conducted without
furnishing the relevant documents to the delinquent, the same would amount to
a violation of the principles of natural justice.
__________
Page17 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 06:42:44 pm )

2026:MHC:4430
WP No. 36210 of 2024
20. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon
another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagat Ram (cited supra),
to contend that the previous statements of the witnesses ought to have been
furnished. However, in the present case, it appears that the proceedings were
initiated on the basis of a criminal complaint. Therefore, there would not have
been any previous statement, so as to give to the petitioner. On the other hand,
in the present case, the very fact that the witnesses were not examined in the
presence of the petitioner, and the documents relied upon were not furnished to
him at the time of examination of the witnesses would clearly demonstrate a
blatant violation of the principles of natural justice.
21. The contention with regard to Rule 9-A of the Tamil Nadu Civil
Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules also cannot be ignored, as the petitioner
and the other delinquent belong not only to the same Department but in the
same office. Therefore, the enquiry as contemplated under Rule 9-A of the
Rules is required to be strictly followed in the instant case.
22. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the firm view that
the enquiry conducted during the period from 23.04.2024 to 21.05.2024,
pursuant to the charge memorandum dated 15.04.2021, is liable to be interfered
__________
Page18 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 06:42:44 pm )

2026:MHC:4430
WP No. 36210 of 2024
with and declared null and void. Consequently, the enquiry report dated
28.05.2024 submitted by the Enquiry Officer and the impugned letter dated
18.10.2024 are also liable to be set aside. Accordingly, this Court allows both
the Writ Petitions and directs the respondents to conduct a de novo enquiry by
duly complying with all the procedures contemplated under the applicable
disciplinary rules and by adhering to the principles of natural justice.
Considering the pendency of the issue since 2018, the respondent authorities are
directed to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of four months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is directed to
cooperate with the disciplinary proceedings. Consequently, the connected
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.
02-11-2026
Index: Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes
KV
__________
Page19 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 06:42:44 pm )

2026:MHC:4430
WP No. 36210 of 2024
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
Micro, Mini and Small Industries Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai -9.
2. The Industries Commissioner,
Directorate Of Industries And Commerce,
Sidco Office Building,
Guindy, Chennai -32.
3. The Enquiry Officer/General Manager,
District Industries Centre, Collectorate Complex,
Kancheepuram.
__________
Page20 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 06:42:44 pm )

2026:MHC:4430
WP No. 36210 of 2024
C.KUMARAPPAN J.
KV
WP Nos. 36210 and 17589 of 2024
02-11-2026
__________
Page21 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 06:42:44 pm )