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

N.Kalaiyarasi v. The Director/ Director General of Audit

DISMISSED
Court
High Court of Madras
Decided
8 July 2026
Bench
Mummineni Sudheer Kumarauthor
Case no.
WP(MD) 19051/2026

Judgment

O R D E R Heard Mr.A.Mohamed Ashfalk for the Petitioner and Mr.M.Dinesh Hari Sudarsan, learned Counsel for Government of TamilNadu (Civil Side) for Respondents 1 to 4.

¶2This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent Director to initiate forthwith the disciplinary proceedings against the 5th respondent namely, Mr.D.Arjunraj as contemplated under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, based upon the Compliant submitted by the petitioner to him dated 06.01.2025.

¶3The petitioner is working as an Assistant Inspector in the office of the Deputy Director, State Government Audit Department, Karur District. He claims to have made a complaint against the 5th respondent, who is working as an Inspector in the State Government Audit Department, Thanjavur District, on 06.01.2025. Alleging failure on the part of the 2nd respondent to take action on the said representation and to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the 5th respondent, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

¶4According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, pursuant to the complaint made by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent has taken action and an enquiry was conducted. However, no further action has been taken.

¶5The petitioner, being a co-employee working in the State Audit Department, has no locus to demand the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against other co-employee. If at all the petitioner has any information regarding the misconduct of any employee, including the 5th respondent herein, it is always open to the petitioner to bring the same to the notice of the higher officials. In the instant case, the petitioner appears to have done so by submitting a representation dated 06.01.2025.

¶6The decision as to whether any action should be taken on the said representation or on the alleged misconduct of the 5th respondent rests with the disciplinary authority. The petitioner cannot compel the disciplinary authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the 5th respondent under any circumstances.

¶7In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the filing of the present Writ Petition by the petitioner is an abuse of the process of this Court, as the petitioner has no grievance with regard to his service. Thus, this Court does not find any merit in the Writ Petition.

¶8In the light of the above, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

08.07.2026 Index :Yes / No Internet :Yes / No NCC :Yes / No Nsr To:

1.The Director/Director General of Audit, Local Fund Audit Department, Nandhanam, Chennai - 600 035.

2.The Director, State Government Audit Department, Nandhanam, Chennai - 600 035.

3.The Regional Joint Director, Local Fund Audit Department, Coimbatore District - 641 018.

4.The Inspector, State Government Audit Department, Thanjavur District - 613 001. MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

, J.

Nsr

08.07.2026

Case details

Parties and counsel

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.07.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR N.Kalaiyarasi ... Petitioner vs. 1.The Director/Director General of Audit, Local Fund Audit Department, Nandhanam, Chennai - 600 035. 2.The Director, State Government Audit Department, Nandhanam, Chennai - 600 035. 3.The Regional Joint Director, Local Fund Audit Department, Coimbatore District - 641 018. 4.The Inspector, State Government Audit Department, Thanjavur District - 613 001. 5.D.Arjunraj, Inspector, State Government Audit Department, Thanjavur District - 613 001. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent Director to initiate forthwith the disciplinary proceedings against the 5th respondent namely, Mr.D.Arjunraj as contemplated under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, based upon the Compliant submitted by the petitioner to him dated 06.01.2025. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Mohamed Ashfalk For R-1 to R-4 : Mr.M.Dinesh Hari Sudarsan Counsel for Government of TamilNadu (Civil Side) *****

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.