Disposed

G. Samuel Sunil Dhass v. the Director of Fisheries

Madras HC17 Apr 2015WP(MD)/15137/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Director of Fisheries to complete a pending departmental enquiry against him. The Court directed the respondent to complete the enquiry and pass orders within six weeks without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to complete departmental enquiry within six weeks; No costs.

G. Samuel Sunil Dhass Vs the Director of Fisheries — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17.04.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶5

WRIT PETITION (MD) No.15137 of 2014

¶6

G.Samuel Sunil Dhass ... Petitioner

¶7

-vs-

¶8

The Director of Fisheries DMS Compound Teynampet, Chennai

¶9

The Assistant Director of Fisheries, Vaigai Dam, Theni District.

¶10

... Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to complete the department enquiry initiated against the petitioner in Na.Ka.No.L3/27381/13 dated 06.09.2013.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Perumal For Respondents : Mr.V.Muruganandam Addl. Govt. Pleader

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition, seeking for a direction to the 1st respondent to complete the department enquiry initiated against the petitioner in Na.Ka.No.L3/27381/13 dated 06.09.2013.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, on receipt of the charge memo on 16.09.2013, immediately submitted his explanation and further explanation dated 25.09.2013 and 05.12.2013 respectively. Even after receipt of the same, the 1st respondent has neither dropped the charges nor appointed any enquiry officer to proceed further with the enquiry till now. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the above relief.

¶16

Learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents has fairly submitted that the first respondent may be directed to complete the enquiry by granting reasonable time limit.

¶17

Considering the limited prayer sought for by the petitioner, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, directs the first respondent to complete the departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶18

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶19

Sd/-

¶20

Assistant Registrar(writ)

¶21

/True Copy/

¶22

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

¶23

Sub- Assistant Registrar

¶24

¶25

¶26

The Director of Fisheries DMS Compound Teynampet, Chennai

¶27

The Assistant Director of Fisheries, Vaigai Dam, Theni District.

¶28

+1cc to M/s.V.Perumal, Advocate SR.No.19963

¶29

sm:28.04.2015:2P/4C ar

¶30

WRIT PETITION (MD) No.15137 of 2014 17.04.2015

¶31

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

G. Samuel Sunil Dhass v. the Director of Fisheries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Samuel Sunil Dhass v. the Director of Fisheries

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

A1 Mohammed Saleem, Vs State Rep. by Its Secretary

V. Sababathy Vs the Regional Transport Officer

Manimaran Vs the Managing Director

R.Anbarasan, Vs the Senior Regional Manager

M.Pandian, S/O Murugayyan, Vs the Senior Regional Manager

D. Vasantha, Vs the Accountant General