Madras High Court
K.Ranjith Murugan vs The Director Of School Education on 9 March, 2026
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH
COURT
DATED: 09.03.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
WA.(MD)No.14 of 2026
and
CMP.(MD)No.94 of 2026
K.Ranjith Murugan ... Appellant
Vs.
1.The Director of School Education,
DPI Complex, College Road, Chennai-6.
2.The Joint Director of School Education (Personal),
DPI Complex, College Road, Chennai-6.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Tenkasi, Tenkasi District.
4.The District Educational Officer (Secondary),
Tenkasi, Tenkasi District.
1/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 06:58:16 pm )
5.The District Educational Officer (Private School),
Tenkasi, Tenkasi District.
6.L.Rejini ... Respondents
PRAYER:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause-15 of the Letters
Patent, to set aside the order dated 26.11.2025 in WP.(MD)No.
24658 of 2025 and allow this writ appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Pon Ram Kumar
For R1 to R5 : Mr.J.Ashok,
Additional Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.)
This writ appeal has been filed as against the order
passed in WP.(MD)No.24658 of 2025 dated 26.11.2025.
2.It is the case of the appellant/writ petitioner that he
was appointed as Junior Assistant on 11.10.2013 in the District
Educational Office, Cheranmahadevi. He is Tenkasi District
2/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 06:58:16 pm )
President of the Tamilnadu School Education Ministerial Staff
Welfare Association. By letters dated 14.05.2024 and
06.06.2024, the writ petitioner’s Association requested the
third respondent/The Chief Educational Officer, Tenkasi
District and the fourth respondent/ The District Educational
Officer, Tenkasi District to issue job card by mentioning their
works and duties and also by letter dated 20.09.2024, the
petitioner’s Association has requested the first
respondent/Director of School Education for not allotting
EMIS work to Junior Assistant. The third respondent directed
all the Junior Assistants along with Administrative Instructor
staff have to upload particulars of the materials of the
students in EMIS App and UDISE Plus App. Due to lack of
knowledge and qualification, the lab assistants were not able
to handle EMIS App and UDISE Pluse App. As per directions
given by the first respondent herein it was decided not to allot
the said work to lab assistants. The Junior Assistants were
3/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 06:58:16 pm )
also appointed on the basis of SSLC qualification and hence,
they were not in a position to handle EMIS App and UDISE
App. However, the third respondent shouted the writ
petitioner. Immediately, the members of the petitioner’s
Association boycotted the said place by addressing their
grievances and they left the meeting peacefully and
democratically without any disruption. The first respondent
herein vide order dated 24.09.2024 suspended the petitioner
and two others. With a malafide intention and contrary to the
guidelines stipulated in the Tamil Nadu Civil Service
Discipline and Appeal Rules [hereinafter referred as ‘the
Service Rules’] and in order to stall the petitioner’s promotion
as PG Assistant, the third respondent has issued a charge
memo dated 20.11.2024 under Rule 17(b) of the Service Rules
calling upon the petitioner to submit explanation, within 15
days. Aggrieved over the aforesaid issuance of charge memo
dated 20.11.2024, the writ petitioner has filed a writ petition
4/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 06:58:16 pm )
in WP.(MD)No.24658 of 2025. The writ Court upon hearing
the either side, vide common order dated 26.11.2025 dismissed
the said writ petition. Challenging the same, the present writ
appeal came to be filed.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/
writ petitioner would submit that writ Court dismissed the
writ petition by directing the respondents to complete the
enquiry without altering charge memo under Rule 17(b) of the
Service Rules, which is erroneous and un-sustainable in law.
Also failed to consider the specific guidelines issued by the
Government of Tamil Nadu with regard to the framing of
charges under Rules 17(a) and Rules 17(b) of the Service
Rules. As per Rule 17(b) of the Service Rules and the
guidelines stipulated in the Rule for the allegation of
falsification of Government Records and illegal gratification,
charge has to be framed only under Rule 17(b) of the Service
5/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 06:58:16 pm )
Rules. However, the charges with regard to redressing the
grievances by way of peaceful agitation has to be framed
under Rule 17(a) of the Service Rules. The charges, which are
pending as against the writ petitioner under Rule 17(b) of the
Service Rules are flimsy in nature and do not point out any
demand or collection of illegal gratification by the writ
petitioner, commission or omissions for personal gain, receipt
of any favour, misappropriation, dereliction of duty,
insubordination or any allegation involving moral turpitude.
To strengthen his contention, he has relied upon the following
judgments:
i.M.Sampoornam Vs. The State of Tamil
Nadu Rep.by its Secretary to Government, Revenue
Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9 and another,
reported in 2013 SCC Online Mad 1057
ii.The Gov.of Tamilnadu Rep.by its
Secretary to Government Commercial Taxes &
Registration Department, Secretariat, Chennai and
another Vs. P.Sundar in WA.No.1184 of 2015, dated6/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 06:58:16 pm )
07.08.2018
iii.B.Sowndhararaj Vs. The Director of
Elementary Education, Chennai-6 and others in
WP.No.20073 of 2019, dated 11.12.2019
iv.Arunkanth Vs. Tamil Nadu Uniformed
Services Recruitment Board, Represented by its
Chairman/Member Secretary, Recruitment Sub-
Committee and others reported in 2023 SCC Online
Mad 5456
v.A.Lakshminarayanan Vs. Assistant
General Manager-HRM/Disciplinary Authority
reported in 2023 SCC Online Mad 5314
vi.J.Jayaraj and others Vs. The Chief
Educational Officer, Karur, Karur District and
others in WP.(MD)Nos.13409 to 13415 of 2022,
dated 17.11.2023
vii.M.Raghvelu Vs.Govt.A.P. and another
reported in 1997 (10) SCC
viii.Director General of Police and others
Vs. G.Dasayan reported in 1998(2) SCC
ix.Anand Regional Coop.Oil Seedsgrowers’
Union Ltd., Vs. Shaileshkumar Harshadhai Shah
reported in 2006(6) SCC
7/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 06:58:16 pm )
x.Rajendra Yadav Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh and others reported in 2013(3)SCC
xi.Naresh Chandra Bhardwaj Vs. Bank of
India and others reported in 2019(15)SCC
xii.K.Vasanthi Vs. Secretary to Govt.,
Health and Family Welfare (K1) Department and
others reported in 2019 SCC Online Mad 31202
xiii.Principal Secretary to Government and
others Vs. K.R.Palanisamy reported in 2021 SCC
Online Mad 2850
4.Per contra, the learned Additional Government
Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that for
the various delinquencies committed by the writ petitioner,
which are in violation of Tamil Nadu Government Servants
Conduct Rules such as insubordination and had even
disrupted various welfare measures that were to be
implemented by the Government and therefore, disciplinary
proceedings were initiated by the respondents. The writ
petitioner instead of submitting his explanation to the
8/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 06:58:16 pm )
authorities concerned, had challenged the very issuance of
the charge memo itself. The scope of interference by the writ
Court in interfering in the disciplinary proceedings is very
limited and when the charge memo is pending for enquiry,
the writ Court cannot enter into to test the correctness of the
charges framed as against the writ petitioner. Therefore, the
writ Court has rightly dismissed the writ petition.
5.We have paid our anxious consideration to the
submissions made and also perused the materials placed on
record.
6.It is seen from the records that the third
respondent/Chief Educational Officer, Tenkasi District had
issued charge memo against the writ petitioner by way of
proceedings in Na.Ka.No.242/A1/2024, dated 20.11.2024
under Rule 17(b) of the Service Rules calling upon the writ
petitioner to submit his explanation within 15 days, as early as
9/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 06:58:16 pm )
on 20.11.2024. Totally 6 charges are levelled as against the
writ petitioner. In the charge memo-annuxre III, mentioned
about the documents and other materials, which are relied by
the Department and list of witnesses are mentioned in
Annuxre-IV. Whereas the appellant contended that no list of
witnesses have been mentioned in the charge memo. An
enquiry officer had been appointed on 02.01.2025. The
appellant admitted that he had received second enquiry
notice. The appellant had not chosen to submit his
explanation to the charge memo, whereas, sought for list of
witnesses, for which enquiry officer seems to have answered
that the list of witnesses would be given during the course of
the enquiry.
7.It is pertinent to note that the charge memo cannot
be simply quashed, without substantiate that it has been
issued with malafide intention.
10/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 06:58:16 pm )
8.It is relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in a case of Secretary, Ministry of
Defence and Others Vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha reported in
(2012) 11 SCC 565, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held
as follows:
8.Law does not permit quashing of
chargesheet in a routine manner. In case the
delinquent employee has any grievance in respect
of the chargesheet he must raise the issue by filing
a representation and wait for the decision of the
disciplinary authority thereon. In case the
chargesheet is challenged before a court/tribunal
on the ground of delay in initiation of disciplinary
proceedings or delay in concluding the
proceedings, the court/tribunal may quash the
chargesheet after considering the gravity of the
charge and all relevant factors involved in the case
weighing all the facts both for and against the11/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 06:58:16 pm )
delinquent employee and must reach the
conclusion which is just and proper in the
circumstance.
9….
10.Ordinarily a writ application does not
lie against a chargesheet or show cause notice for
the reason that it does not give rise to any cause of
action. It does not amount to an adverse order
which affects the right of any party unless the
same has been issued by a person having no
jurisdiction/competence to do so. A writ lies when
some right of a party is infringed. In fact,
chargesheet does not infringe the right of a party.
It is only when a final order imposing the
punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a
party is passed, it may have a grievance and cause
of action. Thus, a chargesheet or show cause notice
in disciplinary proceedings should not ordinarily
be quashed by the Court.
11…
12.Thus, the law on the issue can be summarised to
the effect that chargesheet cannot generally be a subject matter
of challenge as it does not adversely affect the rights of the
delinquent unless it is established that the same has been issued
12/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 06:58:16 pm )
by an authority not competent to initiate the disciplinary
proceedings. Neither the disciplinary proceedings nor the
chargesheet be quashed at an initial stage as it would be a
premature stage to deal with the issues. Proceedings are not
liable to be quashed on the grounds that proceedings had been
initiated at a belated stage or could not be concluded in a
reasonable period unless the delay creates prejudice to the
delinquent employee. Gravity of alleged misconduct is a
relevant factor to be taken into consideration while quashing
the proceedings.
9.It is the settled principle of law that ordinarily a
writ petition challenging a charge memo or show cause notice
is not maintainable unless the same has been issued by an
incompetent authority or is vitiated by patent mala fides. The
purpose of issuance of a charge memo is only to initiate
disciplinary proceedings so as to ascertain the truth or
otherwise of the allegations levelled against the delinquent
employee. The correctness or otherwise of the charges cannot
be adjudicated in proceedings under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India at a premature stage when the enquiry
itself is yet to be conducted.
13/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 06:58:16 pm )
10.In the present case, the charge memo clearly
indicates the statement of imputations, list of documents
relied upon and the list of witnesses proposed to be examined
by the department. Therefore, it cannot be said that the
proceedings suffer from any procedural infirmity or violation
of the principles of natural justice at this stage. The appellant
is at liberty to submit his detailed explanation and participate
in the enquiry proceedings, wherein all his contentions,
including the nature of the charges and their applicability
under the relevant rules, can be effectively raised before the
disciplinary authority.
11.At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for
the appellant/writ petitioner would submit that this Court
may direct the respondents to furnish the copies of the
documents, which are all annexed in the charge memo.
14/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 06:58:16 pm )
12.Considering the above submission, in the interest
of justice, the respondents are directed to furnish the copies of
the documents, which are all annexed in the charge memo.
13.In the result, this writ appeal is dismissed. There
shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
[N.S.K., J.] & [M.J.R., J.]
09.03.2026
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes
GNS
To
1.The Director of School Education,
DPI Complex, College Road, Chennai-6.
2.The Joint Director of School Education (Personal),
DPI Complex, College Road, Chennai-6.
15/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 06:58:16 pm )
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Tenkasi, Tenkasi District.
4.The District Educational Officer (Secondary),
Tenkasi, Tenkasi District.
5.The District Educational Officer (Private School),
Tenkasi, Tenkasi District.
16/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 06:58:16 pm )
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
GNS
W.P.(MD)No.14 of 2026
09.03.2026
17/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 06:58:16 pm )
