Allowed

P.Moovendan, v. The Commissioner

Madras HC3 Jul 2017WP/10180/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged an order reverting a petitioner from Market Night Watchman to Sanitary Worker. The Court held that the order was passed without affording an opportunity to the employee, violating natural justice, and quashed it.

What did the court decide?

The order of reversion is quashed. The case is left open for the respondents to issue a fresh notice after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner.

P.Moovendan, Vs The Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 03.07.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

W.P.No.10180 of 2017 and

¶6

W.M.P.Nos.11145 & 11146 of 2017

¶7

P.Moovendan .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The Commissioner
Municipal Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai – 5.
2. The Commissioner,
Panruti Municipality,
Cuddalore District. .. Respondents

¶8

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari and to call for the records of the first respondent in D.O.No.7527/2017/C1 dated 31.03.2017 and the consequential order of cancellation of the petitioner's promotion passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No. 2898/2016/C1 dated 04.04.2017 and quash the same.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.M.S.Palaniswamy For Respondents : Mr.S.Gunasekaran, Addl. Govt. Pleader for R1 Mr.P.V.Selvakumar Addl.Govt.Pleader for R2

¶10

This writ petition is filed challenging the order of reversion of the writ petitioner from the post of Market Night Watchman to the post of Sanitary Worker.

¶11

The writ petitioner was appointed as Sanitary Worker and by virtue of the length of service, he was promoted to the post of Market Night Watchman and joined in the post. The short

¶12

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

¶13

ground advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the impugned order of reversion was issued without issuing any notice to the writ petitioner and therefore the impugned order is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The legal principle is that no employee can be reverted without providing an opportunity of submitting his explanation / objection. On the ground of violation of the principle of natural justice, this writ petition is filed.

¶14

Mr.P.V.Selvakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent has filed a counter affidavit, in which, it is not substantiated by the respondent that an opportunity was given to the writ petitioner before issuing the order of reversion. At this stage, it may not be required for this Court to adjudicate the merits and demerits of the respective pleadings, since the basic legal principle of an opportunity was not extended to the writ petitioner.

¶15

Accordingly, this Court is inclined to consider the ground raised by learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶16

Thus the impugned order suffers infirmity and accordingly the writ petition is to be allowed.

¶17

However, it is left open for the respondents to reopen the case by issuing fresh notice and after providing all reasonable opportunity and after getting explanation from the writ petitioner, they can proceed with the matter for passing orders in this regard.

¶18

With this observation, the impugned order of reversion is quashed and writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.

¶19

Sd/-

¶20

Assistant Registrar(CS VI)

¶21

at/dpq

¶22

¶23

The Commissioner Municipal Administration, Chepauk, Chennai – 5.

¶24

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

¶25

The Commissioner, Panruti Municipality, Cuddalore District.

¶26

+1cc to Mr.M.S.Palinswamy Advocate SR.No.46406 +1cc to Government Pleader SR.No.46558

¶27

W.P.No.10180 of 2017
and
W.M.P.Nos.11145 & 11146 of 2017
MSM(CO)
GN(24/07/2017)

¶28

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

P.Moovendan, v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Moovendan, v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.N.Rangachari(Deceased) Vs the District Elementary

All India Gl.Insurance Bc Vs 1.GOVT.,OF India Rep.by Secy.

Ananthayee Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

R.Venkatesan Vs The Commissioner

Mrs.Jayapradha.E Vs Government of Tamil Nadu

N.Nallappan Vs The Deputy Regitrar of