VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Madras High Court 2026 › High Court of Madras

V.Senguttuvan v. The Commissioner of Sugar/ Director of Sugar

DISPOSED OF
Court
High Court of Madras
Decided
10 July 2026
Bench
P.T. Ashaauthor
Case no.
WP 26406/2026

Judgment

ORDER This writ petition has been filed seeking the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings initiated pursuant to the charge memo dated 01.02.2021 and pass final orders within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶2The case of the petitioner is that while he was serving as Deputy Chief Engineer, the second respondent issued a charge memo dated 01.02.2021. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 23.02.2021. Thereafter, without considering the explanation, the 2nd respondent ordered a departmental enquiry. An Enquiry Officer was appointed on 30.10.2021, who submitted his report on

16.11.2021 holding that all the charges stood proved against the petitioner. Subsequently, on 15.05.2025, the second respondent decided to keep the enquiry report in abeyance and requested the first respondent to appoint a fresh Enquiry Officer on the ground that the earlier Enquiry Officer was subordinate to the delinquent officer. Accordingly, the first respondent appointed a new Enquiry Officer on 30.07.2025. The petitioner appeared before the newly Page2 of 5 appointed Enquiry Officer on 04.09.2025 and submitted his explanation. According to the petitioner, though the disciplinary proceedings have been pending for more than four years, several of his juniors have been promoted to the post of Chief Engineer, thereby seriously affecting the promotional prospects. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶3The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that the disciplinary proceedings would be concluded strictly in accordance with G.O.(Ms).No.34 Human Resources Management(N-2) Department, dated 17.06.2026.

4.This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

¶5It is not in dispute that the disciplinary proceedings have been pending from the year 2021. Though the enquiry has undergone a fresh process with the appointment of a new Enquiry Officer, the proceedings cannot be permitted to remain pending indefinitely, particularly when the petitioner's promotional prospects are stated to have been affected. Page3 of 5

¶6In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the charges, the second respondent is directed to complete the disciplinary proceedings and pass final orders on the charge memo in accordance with law and in the light of G.O.Ms.No.34 dated 17.06.2026, within a period of four(4) weeks from today.

¶7With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 10-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order MRP To

¶1The Commissioner of Sugar/ Director of Sugar O/o. Directorate of Sugar, 2nd Floor, Aavinillam, 3-A, Pasumpon MuthuramalinganarSalai (formerly Anna Salai ), Nandanam, Chennai-035.

¶2The Administrator M.R.Krishnamurthy Co-Operative Sugar Mills Ltd Sethiathope (Post), Chidambaram Taluk, Cuddalore District. Page4 of 5

P.T.ASHA, J. MRP 10-07-2026 Page5 of 5

Case details

Parties and counsel

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA and WMP No.28867 of 2026 V.Senguttuvan S/o.Vembu, Deputy Chief Engineer, Amaravathi Co-Operative Sugar Mills Ltd Krishnapuram, Madathukualm (TK), -642111 Tiruppur District. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Commissioner of Sugar/ Director of Sugar O/o.Directorate of Sugar, 2nd Floor, Aavinillam, 3-A, Pasumpon MuthuramalinganarSalai (formerly Anna Salai ), Nandanam, Chennai-035. 2. The Administrator M.R.Krishnamurthy Co- Operative Sugar Mills Ltd Sethiathope (Post), Chidambaram Taluk, Cuddalore District. ..Respondent(s) This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pass final order on the charge memo in Na.Ka.No.E1-665-2015, dated 01.02.2021 by fixing the outer time limit to conclude the disciplinary proceedings. For Petitioner(s): Mr. P.Ganesan Page1 of 5 For Respondent(s): Mr. K.Sathish, Gov. Adv., for R1 M/s. A.Suganya, Gov. Adv., for R2

Source: High Court of Madras, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.