Disposed

Mrs.S.Revathy, v. the Government of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC7 Mar 2011WP(MD)/2241/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging an order of suspension, the Court declined to revoke the order, holding that such power resides with administrative authorities. The petitioner was directed to seek revocation through proper representation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to send a representation to respondents for revoking the order of suspension within one week.

Mrs.S.Revathy, Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2011)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 7/3/2011 CORAM

¶2

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN

¶3

W.P.(MD) No.2241 of 2011

Mrs.S.Revathy

... Petitioner

The Government of Tamil Nadu through its Principal Secretary Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department Chennai.

¶8

The Director of Social Welfare Government of Tamil Nadu Chepauk Chennai 5. ... Respondents

¶9

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in G.O.(D) No.6 Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme (SW1) Department dated 21/1/2011 and quash the same.

¶10

For petitioner ... Mr.M.Mariappan

¶11

For respondent ... Mr.D.Sasikumar, GA

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

Mr.D. Sasikumar, Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents.

¶14

By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶15

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of suspension of the first respondent dated 21/1/2011.

¶16

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that in the enquiry, it has been found that the petitioner has not misappropriated any amount and hence, the order of suspension has to be revoked. But, unfortunately, I am not able to agree with the said contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Even assuming that in the enquiry, it has been found that the petitioner has not committed misappropriation, it is for the authorities to revoke the order of suspension. This Court has limited power to exercise the option of revoking the power and the power lies only with the officials.

¶17

Considering the same, the petitioner is directed to send a representation to the respondents for revoking the order of suspension within one week from this date and on receipt of the same, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondents are directed to consider the same on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks thereafter.

¶18

The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶19

Sd/Assistant Registrar (P&A) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar

¶20

To 1. The Principal Secretary Government of Tamil Nadu Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department Chennai. 2. The Director of Social Welfare Government of Tamil Nadu Chepauk, Chennai 5. +1cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR.11743 +1cc to Mr.M.Senthil Kumar, Advocate SR.11518 mvs SR : 09.03.2011 : 2p/5c : IT

¶21

W.P.(MD) No.2241 of 2011 7/3/2011

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Mrs.S.Revathy, v. the Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.S.Revathy, v. the Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs Lalithambal Vs Mr Ramanujam

Tg Krishnamoorthy Vs Pappiah Naidu

Hilda Mercy Vs M.Kutralingam.

M/S. Sivakumar Spinning Mills Vs the Employees Provident Fund

Esther Jaya Rani, Vs the District Collector

M.Dharmaraj, Vs Tamilnadu Electricity Board