This order dismisses a writ petition filing under Article 226 seeking to quash a suspension order. The court held that since the petitioner was aggrieved only against the suspension but the final punishment was censure, nothing remains for adjudication.
No relief granted as there was nothing left to adjudicate.
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 : 20.07.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN
W.P. No.21778 of 2003
R.K.Barathavasalu ... Petitioner
PRAYER : Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the respondents ending with the order of the third respondent in proceedings No.2839/GA-1/89 dated 24.10.1989 and of the second respondent in proceedings No.2839/GA-1/89 dated 26.06.1997 and of the first respondent in Rc.No.243/A1/2003 dated 29.05.2003 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.R.Daveson for Mr.V.N.Mohanraj
For Respondents : Mr.K.Rajendiran
O R D E R
This Writ Petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the respondents ending with the order of the third respondent in proceedings No.2839/GA-1/89 dated 24.10.1989 and of the second respondent in proceedings No.2839/GA-1/89 dated 26.06.1997 and of the first respondent in Rc.No.243/A1/2003 dated 29.05.2003 and quash the same.
2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly submitted that even at the time of filing the Writ Petition, the petitioner was aged about 61 years and presently he is 74 years old and he is only aggrieved against the suspension order.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the punishment granted to the petitioner is only in the form of 'censure' after conclusion of the enquiry proceedings and as such, nothing survives for adjudication.
4.Recording the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS IV) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar sri To 1. The Board of Governors, Reviewing Authority, Tamil Nadu Text Book Corporation, Chennai – 600 006. 2. The Executive Committee, Appellate Authority, Tamil Nadu Text Book Corporation, Chennai – 600 006. 3. The Chairman and Managing Director, Disciplinary Authority, Tamil Nadu Text Book Corporation, Chennai – 600 006.
+1cc to Mr.V.N.Mohanraj, Advocate, S.R.No.41326
W.P. No.21778 of 2003
LRS(CO) CA(05/08/2016)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the suspension order against the petitioner can be quashed when the final punishment of censure has already been awarded.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
R.K.Barathavasalu
The Board of Governors, Reviewing Authority, Tamil Nadu Text Book Corporation
The Executive Committee, Appellate Authority, Tamil Nadu Text Book Corporation
The Chairman and Managing Director, Disciplinary Authority, Tamil Nadu Text Book Corporation
The General Manager, Enquiry Officer, Tamil Nadu Text Book Corporation
B.RAJENDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
