The High Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the Tamil Nadu Government and the Commissioner of Municipal Administration to conclude disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Petitioner within four months, noting his superannuation status.
The Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to conclude disciplinary proceedings within four months.
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 : 19.02.2015
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN
Writ Petition No.682 of 2015
M.Ayyappan [ Petitioner ]
Vs
1 The Government of Tamil Nadu Represented by its Additional Chief Secretary Municipal Administration & Water Supply Dept. Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
2 The Commissioner of Municipal Administration Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-5. [Respondents ]
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of mandamus to direct the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders on the representation dated 23.06.2011 08.09.2014 31.10.2014 and 05.12.2014 made by the petitioner for passing of final orders in disciplinary proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent within stipulated time period as may be fixed by this Honourable Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Sundaravadanam For Respondents : Mr.P.Sanjay Gandhi, AGP
The petitioner is facing disciplinary proceedings initiated by the second respondent. A charge memo was issued on 9.6.2011. The second respondent on receipt of explanation to the charge memo appointed an enquiry officer. The enquiry officer conducted enquiry on 30.8.2011 and 3.11.2011. It is the case of the petitioner that notwithstanding conclusion of the enquiry, action was not taken by the second respondent to issue second show cause notice and to conclude the proceedings. The petitioner therefore wanted a direction to the first respondent to conclude the disciplinary proceedings as expeditiously as possible.
order. It is made clear that further extension would not be granted at any cost in view of the fact that the petitioner has already been superannuated.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court was justified in directing the Respondents to conclude disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner within four months?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M. Ayyappan
Government of Tamil Nadu
Commissioner of Municipal Administration
K.K.Sasidharan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
