The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a punishment order withholding increments and salary recovery, holding that the petitioner had an alternative remedy by way of appeal to the District Revenue Officer.
Writ petition was dismissed with liberty to approach the District Revenue Officer; future recovery to cease until appeal decided.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED:13.10.2008
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI
W.P.No.24348 of 2008
and
W.P.M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2008
P. Ilango Bharathi .... petitioner
vs
1. The Revenue Divisional Officer
Virudhachalam
Cuddalore District
2. The Tahsildar
Virudhachalam Taluk
Cuddalore District .. Respondents
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 order passed by the 1st respondent in his Proceedings in Na.Ka.A1/1081/2006, dated ..12.2007 signed on 30.1.2008 and quash the same and direct the respondents to repay the recovered amount for the month of August 2008.
For petitioner : Mr.K. Marinath For respondents : Ms.Lita Srinivasan Government ADvocate
ORDER
The petitioner seeks a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in his Proceedings in Na.Ka.A1/1081/2006, dated ..12.2007 signed on 30.1.2008 and quash the same and direct the respondents to repay the recovered amount for the month of August 2008.
Sd/Asst. Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar sr To
1 C.C. to Government Pleader SR.No.57016.
W.P.No.24348 of 2008
sp(co) pmk/20.10.2008.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the imposition of punishment and salary recovery should be entertained despite the existence of an alternative remedy.
The extent of salary recovery from a petitioner who has already imposed a punishment affecting his pensionary benefits.
The procedural availability of the appellate remedy under Rule 17(b) against administrative orders.
P. Ilango Bharathi
The Revenue Divisional Officer Virudhachalam
The Tahsildar Virudhachalam Taluk
P. Jyothimani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
