Allowed

S.Pandi v. the Secretary to Govt.

Madras HC9 Sept 2016WP(MD)/2154/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition was filed challenging an administrative order regarding the pendency of a departmental inquiry affecting the petitioner's retirement. Upon confirmation that charges were dropped, the court directed the respondents to permit the petitioner's retirement and pay all dues.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to permit petitioner's retirement as per superannuation date of 30.04.1997 and pay all service and monetary benefits within four weeks.

S.Pandi Vs the Secretary to Govt. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.09.2016 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN

¶4

W.P.(MD)No.2154 of 2011 and

¶5

M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011

¶6

S.Pandi

¶7

... Petitioner Vs.

¶8

1.The Secretary to Government, Highways and Minor Ports (HL1) Department, Secretariat,

¶9

Chennai – 09.

¶10

2.The Secretary to Government, Rural Department (E2) Department, Secretariat, Chennai -9.

¶11

3.The Divisional Engineer, Highways Department, Tirunelveli.

¶12

4.The Block Development Officer, Chellampatti Panchayat Union, Madurai. ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings in impugned letter No.7164/HL1/2009-1 dated 18.08.09 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same and further direct to permit the petitioner to retire from the petitioner's service.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Maheswaran For Respondents : Mr.Aairam K.Selvakumar Govt. Advocate for R1 to R3 Mr.M.V.Venkataseshan for R4

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The petitioner has come to this Court challenging the impugned order in No.7164/HL1/2009-1 dated 18.08.09 on the file of the first respondent and for further direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to retire from his service. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

¶18

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and the learned counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent.

¶19

It is seen from the counter affidavit that after issuance

¶20

of charge memo, an enquiry officer was appointed and the enquiry was going on. Further it is seen from the counter affidavit that the enquiry officer sent a communication that the enquiry would be completed within 6 months.

¶21

4.When the matter is taken up for hearing today, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the enquiry was conducted and a report was also filed and based on that the order G.O.Ms.No.107, dated 10.05.2013 has been passed by stating that all the charges were dropped.

¶22

The said submission is recorded. The petitioner would have permitted to retire from his service on 30.04.1997. But due to pendency of the above charge memo, permission has not been granted. Now as the respondents themselves have dropped the charges, the respondents are hereby directed to permit the petitioner to retire from his service as per his superannuation dated 30.04.1997 and pay all the service and monetary benefits. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶23

With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar (Crl.side)

¶26

/True copy/

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

¶29

1.The Secretary to Government, Highways and Minor Ports (HL1) Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 09.

¶30

2.The Secretary to Government,

¶31

Rural Department (E2) Department, Secretariat, Chennai -9. 3.The Divisional Engineer, Highways Department, Tirunelveli.

¶32

4.The Block Development Officer,

¶33

Chellampatti Panchayat Union, Madurai.

¶34

+1 CC to M/s.G.PRABHU RAJADURAI, Advocate, SR No.51691

¶35

+1 CC to THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SR No.51937

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.(MD)No.2154 of 2011 and M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 09.09.2016

¶38

SH/SS-3:25.10.2016:2P/7C

S.Pandi v. the Secretary to Govt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Pandi v. the Secretary to Govt.

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

J. Blake Solomon Chandra Vs the Joint Director

R.Kaleeswaran Vs R.Samundeeswaran

T.K. Arumugam (Deceased) Vs Smt.Sivagamasundari

Rev. C.H. Alfred, Corporate Vs the Director of School

Sundarajan Vs Dr.K.Chandrasekaran

Asan Mohamad Jailabudeen, Vs The Assistant Commissioner of