Allowed

The Director of Survey v. N.Mathaiyan

Madras HC2 Nov 2017WA/883/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court modified a Single Judge's order reinstating a public servant suspended due to corruption prosecution. The Court directed departments to proceed with the trial within three months, otherwise posting the petitioner in a non-sensitive post per Ayay Kumar Choudhary guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Respondent to be posted in any non-sensitive post if criminal prosecution trial is not concluded within three months of the judgment date.

The Director of Survey Vs N.Mathaiyan — Corruption | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 2.11.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G.RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN

¶5

W.A.No.883 of 2017

¶6

and

¶7

C.M.P.No.12279 of 2017

¶8

The Director of Survey Settlement, Survey and Land Records, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.

¶9

The Assistant Director of Survey

¶10

and Land Records, Salem. ..Appellants/Respondents Versus P.Madhaiyan ..Respondent/Petitioner

¶11

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 25.10.2016 passed in W.P.No.35496 of 2016 on the file of this court. Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarifed Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the 2nd respondent in his Roc.No.3036/ 2015/A3 dated 09.05.2015 and consequential order in Na.Ka.No.A5/ 3036/2015 dated 11.02.2016 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service and all other attendant benefit

¶12

For appellants : Mr.P.S.Sivashanmugasundaram, Special Government Pleader

¶13

For RR1 and 2 : Mr.A.Prakash for Mr.R.Saseetharan JUDGMENT

¶14

(Judgment of the court was made by HULUVADI G.RAMESH, J.)

¶15

Heard the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶16

The writ appeal challenges the order passed by the learned Single Judge directing the appellant to reinstate the

¶17

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

¶18

respondent herein, who is facing a criminal prosecution under the provisions of Prevention of Anti Corruption Act and thereupon placed under suspension, in any non-sensitive post in the light of the decision in AJAY KUMAR CHOUDHARY v. UNION OF INDIA ((2015) 7 SCC 291).

¶19

It is brought to our notice that the writ petitioner caught red handed while getting bribe and in the criminal case, charges are said to have been framed and the Trial has commenced.

¶20

In the circumstances of the case, in modification of the order passed by the learned single Judge, we hold that it is for the appellants to proceed with the Trial of the criminal prosecution and conclude the same within a period of another three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment or in the event of non-conclusion of the criminal prosecution within the time stipulated above, the respondent herein shall be posted in any non-sensitive post in the light of the decision in Ajay Kumar Choudhary's case cited supra. The writ appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶21

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-VIII)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
ssk.
To:
1. The Director of Survey Settlement,
Survey and Land Records,
Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
2. The Assistant Director of Survey
and Land Records, Salem.
+ 1 cc to MR.R. Saseetharan, Advocate SR.78471
+ 1 cc to Government Pleader Sr.78301

¶22

W.A.No.883 of 2017 RSI(CO) EU(12/12/2017 )

¶23

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

The Director of Survey v. N.Mathaiyan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Director of Survey v. N.Mathaiyan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gayathri Swaminath Vs The Convenor

The Director Vs R.Rema

A.Palanisamy, S/o.Arumugam M, Vs The Director of Town

Sri.P.K. Govindaraju Vs the Chief Manager

Logeshwari Thanigachalam Vs The Director

Union of India rep by Vs S.Balaji