K.RAVICHANDAR vs THE TAMIL NADU CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION

2026:MHC:4465
WP No. 34614 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
WP No. 34614 of 2024
CNR:{HCMA012096632024}
AND
WMP NO. 37546 OF 2024
K.Ravichandar
187, Pillaiyar Kovil Street,
Mottur Village, Abdullapuram Post,
Vellore-632010.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
The Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation
Rep By Its Managing Director, Head Office,
Koyambedu, Chennai-10.
..Respondent(s)
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to drop further
proceedings in charge memo Na.Ka.No.AD7/13163/2022 dated 18.4.2023 of
the respondent, since the respondent has consciously ignored the order of this
Court made in W.P.26244 of 2024 dated 9.9.2024 disclosing absolute disrespect
to the order of this Court and consequentially permit the petitioner to retire on
the date of retirement viz., 30.11.2024.
__________
Page1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:59 pm )

2026:MHC:4465
WP No. 34614 of 2024
For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Venkataraman
For Respondent(s): Mr.C.Selvaraj,
Standing Counsel
*
ORDER
The present Writ Petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus
directing the respondent to drop further proceedings in charge memorandum
Na.Ka.No.AD7/13163/2022 dated 18.4.2023.
2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing
Counsel appearing for the respondent.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that
there was a direction by this Court in WP.No.26244 of 2024 dated 09.09.2024
to complete the disciplinary proceedings. He would further contend that the
direction is not by simply referring about four months, on the other hand, it
specifically stipulates the date that the enquiry should be completed on or before
04.11.2024. Despite having suffered such an order, the respondent without any
due deference to the orders of this Court has dragged the issue. The learned
counsel for the petitioner would further contend that, when there is any
stipulation of time by the Court, it will not be open to the employee to disregard
__________
Page2 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:59 pm )

2026:MHC:4465
WP No. 34614 of 2024
such stipulation and an extension of time must be sought. In the case in hand,
the respondent has neither obtained an extension of time nor evinced any
interest in completing the disciplinary proceedings. It is his further contention
that, the respondent has not even paid the subsistence allowance. Therefore, it is
his contention that the present disciplinary proceedings is liable to be dropped.
In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon
the following judgments:-
1. WA.No.1478 of 2010 dated 05.03.2010 [The State of Tamil
Nadu and another Vs. T.Ranganathan];
2.State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Prakash Singh reported in
2025 SCC OnLine SC 891.
4. Per contra , the said contention was stoutly objected by the learned
counsel for the respondents. It is his contention that an FIR came to be
registered against the petitioner in FIR No.1 of 2022 by CBCID and the issue
involved is a large scale scam where the petitioner and 11 other persons were
involved in the fraudulent activities during the procurement of the paddy. They
have caused huge financial loss to the public ex-chequer. It is his further
submission that since many of the documents were with the CBCID, they found
it difficult to get those documents to prepare for their case in the disciplinary
__________
Page3 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:59 pm )

2026:MHC:4465
WP No. 34614 of 2024
proceedings. Furthermore, now that the Enquiry Officer was appointed on
28.04.2025 and only because of the non cooperation of the petitioner they found
it difficult to complete the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. In
respect of the other 11 employees, the Enquiry Officer has given his finding. It
is the further contention of the respondents that only on account of the writ
petition filed by this petitioner one after another, there was some delay.
Therefore, the petitioner did not make out any ground for dropping of the
charge memorandum.
5.I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.
6.Now with regard to the contention of dropping of the proceedings, the
main contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, there
was a direction by the learned Single Judge to dispose of the disciplinary
proceedings on or before 04.11.2024. Though the respondent would contend
that the delay was only on account of the petitioner’s non cooperation, which
cannot be outrightly ignored or denied, as the petitioner had been initiating
various legal proceedings. However, this Court is not happy with the conduct of
the respondent in appointing the Enquiry Officer after one year from the date of
__________
Page4 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:59 pm )

2026:MHC:4465
WP No. 34614 of 2024
receipt of Explanation dated 09.08.2024 to the charge memorandum. This delay
might have been avoided.
7. Further, the judgment relied by the petitioner to drop the charge
proceedings has not laid down any abstract principles. But, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that dropping of charge on account of delay such decision
has to be taken depending upon the facts of the individual case. In the case in
hand, according to the respondent, there was a huge financial irregularities.
Besides on account of filing of various writ petitions by the petitioner, the
respondent finds it difficult to proceed with the matter.
8.At this juncture, this Court would like to mention that the respondent
has completed the disciplinary proceedings against 11 persons and only against
this petitioner, the same is pending, which factum is not seriously disputed by
the petitioner. Therefore, this Court could able to see that there was no
deliberate delay on the part of the respondent, though there are some delay. In
such view of the factual position, this Court absolutely does not find any merits
in the present writ petition and accordingly, the same is liable to be dismissed.
__________
Page5 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:59 pm )

2026:MHC:4465
WP No. 34614 of 2024
9.At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend
that the petitioner has not paid with the subsistence allowance. In this regard,
the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the petitioner has
since been superannuated on 30.11.2024 and that, he is not entitled for
subsistence allowance. But, to uncover the legal issue involved, the petitioner
relied upon the Division Bench judgement of this Court in WA.No.1552 of 2011
dated 08.09.2011 [The Managing Director and another Vs. M.Ramalingam] ,
in which this Court held that the Rule which provides to pay subsistence
allowance for six months must only be construed to the fact that the disciplinary
proceedings must have been completed within a period of six months.
10.Therefore, the reference in the Statute to pay six months subsistence
allowance does not mean that the employer should only pay subsistence
allowance for six months. But, the Disciplinary Authority must take all
endeavour to complete the disciplinary proceedings within a period of six
months. In the case in hand, apart from not completing Disciplinary
Proceedings, to complete the same admittedly the petitioner has not been
relieved from duty. Therefore, it is impossible for the petitioner to join any other
job. Therefore, unless the petitioner is being paid with the subsistence
__________
Page6 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:59 pm )

2026:MHC:4465
WP No. 34614 of 2024
allowance, it would definitely affect his right to life. In this regard, the
petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in A.Sivakumar Vs. The
Management and another reported in 2026 MHC 94 , wherein this Court, after
referring the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.Paul Anthony Vs.
Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., and another reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 , held that
the denial of the subsistence allowance would affect the right to life of an
employee, and further held that the payment of subsistence allowance has got a
greater significance in protecting the right to life and if any denial would offend
the Constitution. Therefore, though this Court does not interfere with the
disciplinary proceedings, would like to direct the respondent to disburse the
subsistence allowance to the petitioner until the completion of the enquiry.
11.Before we conclude, it is relevant to mention that when there was a
specific direction to complete the disciplinary proceedings and, if the authority
for any bona fide reason could not complete the enquiry within the specified
time, they ought to have approached the Court for an extension of time. In the
case in hand, the respondent has miserably failed to seek such extension of time.
Though this would amount to Contempt of Court, considering the totality of
circumstances, this Court does not want to pursue such course with a fond hope
__________
Page7 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:59 pm )

2026:MHC:4465
WP No. 34614 of 2024
that the respondent would complete the enquiry proceedings, within a period of
further four(4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Further,
the respondent is also directed to settle the arrears of subsistence allowance, if
any within a period of four(4) weeks from the date of receipt a copy of this
order.
12.Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above
directions. No costs. Consequently, connected WMP is also closed.
04-11-2026
Index: Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes
KMI
To
The Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation
Rep By Its Managing Director, Head Office,
Koyambedu, Chennai-10.
__________
Page8 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:59 pm )

2026:MHC:4465
WP No. 34614 of 2024
C.KUMARAPPAN J.
KMI
WP No. 34614 of 2024
AND
WMP NO. 37546 OF 2024
04-11-2026
__________
Page9 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:59 pm )