Partly allowed

The Chairman, v. R.Sridhar

Madras HC16 Nov 2017WA/1353/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ appeal filed by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. It modified the lower court's order to post the suspended employee, convicted of accepting illegal gratification, in a non-sensitive post within three months if proceedings were not concluded. No costs were awarded.

What did the court decide?

Modified the order to direct posting in a non-sensitive post within three months if proceedings are not completed.

The Chairman, Vs R.Sridhar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 16.11.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G.RAMESH

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN

¶7

W.A.No.1353 of 2017

¶8

and

¶9

C.M.P.No.18704 of 2017

¶10

The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, 76, Mount Salai, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. Appellants

¶11

Versus

¶12

R.Sridhar

¶13

The Principal Secretary to Government, Personnel and Administrative Reforms(N) Department,

¶14

Secretariat, Chennai-9.

¶15

Respondents

¶16

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 2.12.2016 passed in W.P.No.36065 of 2016 on the file of this court praying to call for the records of 2^nd Respondent order dated 08.08.2016 in Proc.C.No TNPCB/PER/CS/11675/2015-2 and quash the same.

¶17

For appellant : Mrs.Rita chandrasekar For R1 : Mr.A.V.Arumugam For R2 : Mr.P.S.Sivashanmugasundaram, Special Government Pleader

¶18

JUDGMENT (Judgment of the court was made by HULUVADI G.RAMESH, J.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶19

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

¶20

The writ appeal is filed challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition and thereby directing the appellants to reinstate the petitioner in any nonsensitive post at a far away place considering the fact that the writ petitioner had been under suspension from 18.4.2015 and charge memo was issued with a long delay, only on 20.5.2016.

¶21

It appears that for the alleged misconduct of accepting illegal gratification for renewal of clearance certificate, the writ petitioner was placed under suspension and disciplinary proceedings had been initiated.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the post held by the writ petitioner is Assistant Engineer in the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board which is a very sensitive one and though there is some administrative delay on the part of the appellant in issuing the charge memo itself, it is a matter of serious concern that he had demanded and accepted illegal gratification for issuing renewal for clearance certificate and therefore, they find some difficulty in implementing the order passed by the learned Single Judge in posting him in some far away place which would be a nonsensitive one, but, however, they would consider him posting in such a non-sensitive post as soon as such a vacancy arises.

¶23

In view of the above submission, the writ appeal is disposed of, modifying the order passed by the learned Single Judge to the extent that the appellant would post the writ petitioner in a non-sensitive post, in case, the entire proceedings against the writ petitioner could not be completed within a period of another three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶24

-s/dDeputy Registrar

¶25

True Copy

¶26

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶27

ssk. To:

¶28

The Principal Secretary to Government, Personnel and Administrative Reforms(N)

¶29

Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.

¶30

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

¶31

+1 CC to Mr. Rita Chandrasekar, Advocate sr 81528. +1 Cc to Govt. Pleader sr 81323.

¶32

+2 Ccs to Mr.A.V. Arumugam, Advocate sr 81722.

¶33

W.A.No.1353 of 2017

¶34

SP(12/12/2017)

¶35

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

The Chairman, v. R.Sridhar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Chairman, v. R.Sridhar

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

The Government of Tamil Nadu, Vs M.Parivelan

The Tamil Nadu Dr. Mgr Medical Vs Dharma Medical Research and

S.v.S.Educational and Social Vs J.Radhakrishnan IAS

The Director of Handlooms and Vs C.Ragupathy

The State of Tamilnadu Vs the Principal & Secretary

M.Lakshmanan Vs the Tamilnadu State Marketing