The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal against a single judge order directing the disciplinary authority to pass a final order within four weeks after completing the enquiry into factory inspector Hemalatha.
The writ appeal was dismissed with liberty to raise issues at an appropriate time when the proper cause of action arises.
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 : 24.04.2015
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL
W.A.No.687 of 2015
and
M.P.No.1 of 2015
S.L.Hemalatha ... Appellant/Petitioner
Vs.
1. State of Tamil Nadu,
rep by Secretary to Government,
Labour & Employment Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-9.
2. The Chief Inspector of Factories,
Chennai-5. ... Respondents/Respondents
This writ appeal is preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters
Patent against the order of this court dated 10.06.2014 in
W.P.No.5398 of 2009.
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India, praying for the issue of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned show cause notice issued by the 1st Respondent in 26947/E1/2008-6 Labour and Employment (E1) Department dated 24.02.2009 the impugned charge memo issued by the 2nd Respondnet in E2/43202/2004 dated 11.04.2005 and also the impugned suspension order issued by the 1st Respondent in G.O.(D) No.595 Labour and Employment Department dated 22.04.2005 and quash the same and to pass appropriate orders.
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J.)
Assailing the show cause notice dated 24.2.2009 issued by the first respondent and the charge memo dated 11.4.2005 issued by the second respondent and also the suspension order dated 22.4.2005 issued by the first respondent, the petitioner has come up with the wit petition. The learned Single Judge, recording the finding that since the enquiry was complete in the meantime, the disciplinary authority may be directed to pass final order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
thereafter, if the decision that is going to be taken by the disciplinary authority is against the petitioner, it is open to her to challenge the said decision. But today it is not known whether the disciplinary authority is going to take a decision in favour of the petitioner or against her. Therefore, at this stage, it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the report of the enquiry officer, he pleaded.”
and ultimately found that since the enquiry was complete, new cause of action has arisen and as such, no interference is warranted, at this stage.
To
UG(CO) CA(18/05/2015)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petitioner can challenge the charge memo at this stage before the final order is passed after a completed enquiry.
Whether a defective enquiry is a ground for quashing the charge memo or only the final order.
S.L. Hemalatha
State of Tamil Nadu
Chief Inspector of Factories
Satish K. Agnihotri
M. Venugopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
