Allowed

S. Sathish, v. the Additional Chief

Madras HC25 Jun 2015WP(MD)/10452/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court directed the Additional Chief Secretary and the Revenue Divisional Officer to dispose of a pending disciplinary action within six months after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to dispose of the disciplinary action within six months, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.

S. Sathish, Vs the Additional Chief — Madras HC (2015) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 25/6/2015 C O R A M

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN Writ Petition (MD) No.10452 of 2015

S.Sathiah

... Petitioner

1.The Additional Chief Secretary and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk,

¶8

Chennai – 600 005.

¶9

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramanathapuram Division, Ramanathapuram.

¶10

.... Respondents

¶11

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first and second respondents I.e., the Additional Chief Secretary and Commissioner of Revenue Administration and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramanathapuram, to dispose off, the disciplinary action initiated in Memo R.C.No.A2/733/2009, dated 28.04.2010 by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramanathapuram, on merits and in accordance with law, specified time frame that may be fixed by this Court.

¶12

For Petitioner For Respondents

¶13

... Mr.S.Visvalingam ... Mr.D.Muruganandam, AGP

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This writ petition has been filed praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first and second respondents, to dispose of, the disciplinary action initiated in Memo R.C.No.A2/733/2009, dated 28.04.2010, by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramanathapuram.

¶16

2.Mr.D.Muruganandam, the learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents and by consent of both parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶17

3.The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that it would suffice, if the disciplinary action https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ initiated by the 2^nd respondent is disposed of, on merits and in accordance with law, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶18

¶19

4.In view of the limited scope of the prayer, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue involved, the 1^st respondent is directed to dispose of the disciplinary action initiated by the 2^nd respondent, against the petitioner in Memo R.C.No.A2/733/2009, dated 28.04.2010, if not already disposed of, and pass appropriate orders on the same and in accordance with law, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. If on a specified date the petitioner does not appear for personal hearing, orders may be passed in accordance with law based on the available records after recording the absence of the Party/Parties.

¶20

5.With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶21

sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side)

¶23

/True Copy/

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

mpk

¶26

¶27

1.The Additional Chief Secretary and

¶28

Commissioner of Revenue Administration,

¶29

Ezhilagam, Chepauk,

¶30

Chennai – 600 005.

¶31

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,

¶32

Ramanathapuram Division, Ramanathapuram.

¶33

- one CC Mr.S.Visvalingam Aadvocate SR.No.33726

¶34

- one CC SPl.Government Pleader SR.No.34020

¶35

Writ Petition (MD) No.10452 of 2015 Date: 25.06.2015

¶36

csl- 24.07.2015 2P/4C

¶37

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

S. Sathish, v. the Additional Chief

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Sathish, v. the Additional Chief

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

E.Thangaraj, Vs the Senior Regional Managaer

S. Ravichandran, Vs the Tamilnadu Water Supply

M.Ravindran Mariappan, Vs the Secretary to the Govt.

M.Mohandass Vs the Chief Engineer

Dr. Prabhu Thangavel Vs the Regional Transport Officer

Kottaimuthu, Vs the Commissioner