M.Mayakrishnan v. The Engineer in Chief / the Chief Engineer (General)

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.C.Jeganathan, learned Counsel for Government appearing for the respondents.

¶2With the consent of both the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

3.The short grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the respondents without furnishing the documents, which are sought to be relied upon in the disciplinary proceedings and referred to in Annexure-III of the charge memo dated 28.05.2025, the respondents are proceeding to conduct an enquiry by appointing an Enquiry Officer.

¶4According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the enquiry was actually scheduled to 09.07.2026, but the same was postponed over a phone call and no further date is informed to the petitioner for conducting enquiry as on date.

¶5From the materials placed before this Court, it is evident that the petitioner vide a representation dated 18.04.2026 requested the first respondent to furnish thirteen documents which are mentioned in Annexure-III of the charge memo. But the first respondent, instead of furnishing the said documents, required the petitioner to approach the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department for obtaining those documents. Despite the fact that none of the relevant documents have been furnished to the petitioner, the respondents are attempting to proceed with the enquiry, thereby causing serious prejudice and grave hardship to the petitioner.

¶6In the light of the above, this Court is the considered view that the first respondent, being a disciplinary authority having issued the charge memo referring to thirteen documents in Annexure-III based on which the charges levelled against the petitioner are sought to be proved, absolutely has no business to require the petitioner to approach the Vigilance and Anti-corruption Department for obtaining those documents. It is for the first respondent to furnish all the documents mentioned in Annexure-III of the charge memo before the petitioner submit his explanation to the charge memo.

¶7Mr.C.Jeganathan, learned Counsel for Government submits that the documents as required by the petitioner and mentioned in Annexure-III would be furnished to the petitioner within a week from today.

¶8In the light of the above, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to furnish the documents mentioned in Annexure-III of the charge memo No.CII(3)/2415/2024-14, dated

28.05.2025 within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the same, the petitioner shall submit his explanation to the charge memo within a further period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the documents from the respondents. On submission of such explanation by the petitioner, in case, if the respondents deem it necessary for conducting an enquiry, then an enquiry may be proceeded with in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

13.07.2026 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No CM TO

¶1The Engineer in Chief / The Chief Engineer (General), Water Resource Department (WRD), PWD Campus, Chepauk,Chennai 05.

¶2The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department (WRD), Madurai Region, PWD Campus, Tallakulam, Madurai District.

¶3The Enquiry Officer, Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department (WRD), Kundaru River Basin Division, Madurai District. MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR,J CM and WMP(MD)No.14543, 14544 and 14545 of 2026 13/07/2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 13/07/2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR and WMP(MD)No.14543, 14544 and 14545 of 2026 M.Mayakrishnan ... Petitioner Vs 1. The Engineer in Chief / The Chief Engineer (General), Water Resource Department (WRD), PWD Campus, Chepauk, Chennai 05. 2. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department (WRD), Madurai Region, PWD Campus, Tallakulam, Madurai District. 3. The Enquiry Officer, Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department (WRD), Kundaru River Basin Division, Madurai District. ... Respondents PRAYER:- Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the Impugned Enquiry Notice in Ka.No.Se.Po/Enquiry Officer/2025/Kamukkam dated 02.07.2026(served on 08.07.2026) passed by the third respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently forbearing the respondent no.3 from conducting department enquiry without furnishing documents as sought for by the petitioner representation dated 18.04.2026 for seeking fair chance to defend his case within a time stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Arjunkumar For Respondents : Mr.C.Jeganathan Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu