NAGALINGAM vs THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
- Court
- Madras High Court
WP No.15570 of 2007, 31204 of 2013 & 5231 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN
WP Nos.15570 of 2007, 31204 of 2013 & 5231 of 2015
CNR:{HCMA010122392007}
CNR: {HCMA010418072013}
CNR: {HCMA010562552015}
and MP Nos.1 of 2007, 1 of 2013 & 1 of 2015
V.Nagalingam ..Petitioner in all WPs
Vs
1. The Superintendent of Police,
Railways, Egmore, Chennai - 8.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Railway, Coimbatore.
..Respondents in
WP.Nos.15570/2007 & 31204/2013
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Home Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Director General of Police,
DGP Office,
Chennai.
__________
Page1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:51 pm )
WP No.15570 of 2007, 31204 of 2013 & 5231 of 2015
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Erode District, Erode.
4. The Accountant General of Tamil Nadu,
Teynampet, Chennai.
..Respondents in
WP.No.5231/2015
Prayer in WP.No.15570/2007: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling
st
for the records on the file of the 1 respondent in connection with the
impugned order dated 19.01.2007 in proceeding No.G1/PR/63/04 and quash
the same.
Prayer in WP.No.31204/2013: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling
st
for the records on the file of the 1 respondent in connection with the
impugned memo dated 23.10.2013 in proceeding No.F1/PR/63/04 and quash
the same.
Prayer in WP.No.5231/2015: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus,
directing the respondents to settle all the retirement and pecuniary dues and
benefits payable to the petitioner herein on his retirement on 31.1.2015
including the monthly pension payable to the petitioner w.e.f. the said date
of retirement.
__________
Page2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:51 pm )
WP No.15570 of 2007, 31204 of 2013 & 5231 of 2015
In WP.Nos.15570/2007 & 31204/2013
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Chandran Sundar Sashikumar
for Ms.Mythili Srinivas
For Respondents : Mr.C.P.Goutham,
Government Advocate (for R1 & R2)
In WP.No.5231/2015
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Chandran Sundar Sashikumar
for Ms.Mythili Srinivas
For Respondents : Mr.C.P.Goutham,
Government Advocate (for R1 to R3)
Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan (for R4)
COMMON ORDER
All three writ petitions have been filed by the same petitioner and
arise out of a common factual matrix.
2. The crux of the issue in W.P.No.15570 of 2007 centers on a
challenge to the impugned order dated 19.01.2007 passed in Proceedings
No.G1/PR/63/04, whereby the petitioner was directed to face an oral
inquiry. The charge memo, dated 14.11.2004, contained two charges against
__________
Page3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:51 pm )
WP No.15570 of 2007, 31204 of 2013 & 5231 of 2015
the petitioner. Both charges pertained to the petitioner approaching the
office of the Director General of Police (DGP) and the Chief Minister’s
Special Cell with a representation seeking permission to start a police
association.
3. During the pendency of the first writ petition, the inquiry
proceedings progressed and a memo dated 23.10.2013 was issued to the
petitioner. By the said memo, the Inquiry Officer held that the charges
against the petitioner stood proved and recommended the imposition of a
punishment under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service
(Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955, and subsequently directed the petitioner
to submit his explanation within fifteen days. Challenging this second
memo, the petitioner filed W.P.No.31204 of 2013.
4. Pending adjudication of these two writ petitions, the petitioner
reached the age of superannuation. Consequently, the petitioner filed the
third writ petition, W.P.No.5231 of 2015, seeking direction for the
settlement of his retirement benefits.
__________
Page4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:51 pm )
WP No.15570 of 2007, 31204 of 2013 & 5231 of 2015
5. Heard the counsel for the petitioner, the Government Advocate
appearing for the respondent Police Department and the counsel appearing
for the respondent/Accountant General.
6. When the matters were taken up today for hearing, the Government
Advocate submitted that as on date, no final punishment has been imposed
on the petitioner. The impugned inquiry order dated 19.01.2007 and the
subsequent memo dated 23.10.2013 remain pending without culminating in
a final order.
7. Owing to the pendency of these two writ petitions, the petitioner
was permitted to retire from service, subject to the outcome of the
disciplinary proceedings.
8. This Court has carefully perused the charges framed against the
petitioner. The two charges relate solely to the petitioner submitting a
representation to the DGP and the Chief Minister’s Special Cell requesting
permission to form a police association. An employee is well within their
__________
Page5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:51 pm )
WP No.15570 of 2007, 31204 of 2013 & 5231 of 2015
rights to submit representations to higher authorities, and it is ultimately for
the administrative authorities to decide whether such a request can be
acceded to. Merely submitting a representation cannot be construed as
misconduct, nor can it form the basis for issuing a departmental charge
memo.
9. In the present case, the petitioner has been subjected to disciplinary
action since 2004 just for submitting a representation. Furthermore, there
has been absolutely no progress in the disciplinary proceedings since 2007,
and the petitioner has also retired from service in the meanwhile. The
Government Advocate has confirmed that no other charges or disciplinary
proceedings are pending against the petitioner.
10. In view of the subsequent developments, the prolonged delay of
over two decades since the issuance of the charge memo, and the fact that
the charges are entirely flimsy and unsustainable in law, this Court finds no
legitimacy in the issuance or continuation of these charges. Consequently,
the entire disciplinary proceedings deserve to be quashed.
__________
Page6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:51 pm )
WP No.15570 of 2007, 31204 of 2013 & 5231 of 2015
11. Accordingly, all three writ petitions stand allowed. The impugned
proceedings challenged in W.P.No.15570 of 2007 and W.P.No.31204 of
2013 are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to process and settle
the entire pensionary and retirement benefits due to the petitioner within a
period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
26-10-2026
Index: Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Sni
To
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Railways, Egmore, Chennai – 8.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Railway, Coimbatore.
3.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,
Home Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
4.The Director General of Police, DGP Office, Chennai.
5.The Superintendent of Police, Erode District, Erode.
6.The Accountant General of Tamil Nadu, Teynampet, Chennai.
__________
Page7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:51 pm )
WP No.15570 of 2007, 31204 of 2013 & 5231 of 2015
KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN J.
Sni
WP Nos.15570 of 2007, 31204 of 2013 & 5231 of 2015
26-10-2026
__________
Page8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:51 pm )