D.Arul vs The Additional Principal Secretary to Government
- Court
- Madras High Court
2026:MHC:4384
WP No. 8110 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
WP No. 8110 of 2022
CNR:{HCMA010467902022}
and
WMP No.8094 of 2022
D.Arul
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Additional Principal Secretary to Government
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (E5)
Department, Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Director of Rural Development and
Panchayatraj
Panagal Maaligai,
Saidapet, Chennai 600 015.
3. The District Collector
Ariyalur District, Ariyalur.
4. The Project/Director/Joint Director
District Rural Development Agency,
Ariyalur District, Ariyalur.
5. The Block Development Officer
(Village Panchayat), Panchayat Union Office,
Andimadam, Ariyalur District.
..Respondent(s)
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
to issue a Writ of Certiorarifed Mandamus, calling for the records of the 5th
respondent passed in Na. Ka. No. B4 / 690 / 2020, dated 03.11.2021 and quash
the same and direct the 3rd respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with
all attendant service and other monetary benefits with continuity of service
within a time frame, as may be fixed by this Court.
__________
Page 1 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:16 pm )
2026:MHC:4384
WP No. 8110 of 2022
For Petitioner(s): Mr.L.Chandrakumar
For Respondent(s): Mr.V.Tamizhanban,
Government Advocate
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the fifth respondent in
Na.Ka.No.B4/690/2020, dated 03.11.2021, quashing the same and directing the
third respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service, with all attendant service
and other monetary benefits, continuity of service, and within a time frame as
may be fixed by this Court.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned
order dated 03.11.2021 terminating the petitioner's services was passed without
affording him any opportunity. In this regard, the learned counsel for the
petitioner relies upon the counter affidavit, wherein certain instances of
delinquency on the part of the petitioner have been referred to. It is his
contention that, having referred to such instances of delinquency in the counter
affidavit, the impugned order cannot be termed as a mere discharge simpliciter.
Hence, he prayed to allow the present Writ Petition.
__________
Page 2 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:16 pm )
2026:MHC:4384
WP No. 8110 of 2022
3. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents stoutly opposed the aforesaid contention and submitted that, on a
perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the same merely records the
discharge of the petitioner. Though certain instances of delinquency have been
referred to in the counter affidavit, the same were mentioned only to place the
relevant facts on record. The petitioner was discharged by way of a discharge
simpliciter, as he was only a contractual employee. Therefore, the respondent
authority, upon due consideration of the relevant documents, passed the
impugned order, which does not warrant any interference by this Court.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on
either side.
5. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the
impugned order of discharge is punitive in nature, no serious contention has
been raised with regard to the denial of the principles of natural justice. Though
the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the counter affidavit, a perusal
of the impugned order reveals that it is merely an order of discharge simpliciter.
Apart from that, the petitioner was not appointed to any sanctioned post and, on
the date of discharge, was only a contractual employee.
__________
Page 3 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:16 pm )
2026:MHC:4384
WP No. 8110 of 2022
6. In view of the aforesaid factual position, this Court does not find any
merit in the present Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
28-10-2026
Index: Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes
KV
To
1. The Additional Principal Secretary to Government
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (E5) Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Director of Rural Development and Panchayatraj
Panagal Maaligai,
Saidapet, Chennai 600 015.
3. The District Collector
Ariyalur District, Ariyalur.
3. The Project/Director/Joint Director
District Rural Development Agency,
Ariyalur District, Ariyalur.
4. The Block Development Officer
(Village Panchayat), Panchayat Union Office,
Andimadam, Ariyalur District.
__________
Page 4 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:16 pm )
2026:MHC:4384
WP No. 8110 of 2022
C.KUMARAPPAN J.
KV
WP No. 8110 of 2022
28-10-2026
__________
Page 5 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:16 pm )