Dismissed

M.Murugesan v. The Additional Director of

Madras HC4 Aug 2017WP/10458/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Challenging cancellation of regularisation and consequent show cause notice, the petitioner argued rules were not followed. The Court held intermediate intervention is undesirable and dismissal is appropriate.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; no order as to costs.

What the court decided

M.Murugesan Vs The Additional Director of — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 04.08.2017

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

WRIT PETITION No. 10458 of 2015 M.P. No. 1 of 2015 and W.M.P.No. 22395 of 2016 & 15539 of 2017

¶6

M.Murugesan ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Additional Director of Survey & Land Records, Survey House, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶7

The Regional Deputy Director of Survey & Land Records, Coimbatore.

¶8

The District Revenue Officer,
Coimbatore.

¶9

The Assistant Director of Survey & Land Records, Coimbatore.

¶10

The Assistant Director of District Employment Office, Coimbatore. ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order of cancellation of regularisation in Na.Ka. No.A8/3127/2013 dated 09.03.2015 and consequential notification in Na.Ka.No.A8/1942/2015 dated 10.03.2015 both issued by the 4^th respondent, quash the same and to issue consequential direction to the fourth respondent to regulate the petitioner's appointment.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Gnanasekar For Respondents : Mr.S.Gunasekaran Additional Government Pleader

¶13

The order of cancellation of regularisation in Na.Ka. No.A8/3127/2013 dated 09.03.2015 and consequential notification in Na.Ka.No.A8/1942/2015 dated 10.03.2015 both issued by the 4^th respondent, is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶14

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

¶15

The order of cancellation of regularisation dated 9^th March 2015 is also under challenge. It is pertinent to note that the services of the writ petitioner were regularised and subsequently, it was found that the rules relating to the regularisation contemplated in G.O.Ms.No.142, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 14.10.2009 and G.O.Ms. No.55, (Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department), dated 08.04.2010 had not been followed. Thus, the Assistant Director has cancelled the regularisation granted holding that there was an irregularity while ordering for regularisation. Consequent to the cancellation of regularisation order in proceedings dated 9^th March 2015, a show cause notice was issued to the writ petitioner in notice dated 10^th March 2015. On receipt of the notice the writ petitioner submitted his explanation on 19^th March 2015. At this stage, the present writ petition was moved challenging both the cancellation of regularisation as well as the show cause notice.

¶16

At this stage it need not be entertained by this Court in view of the fact that the explanation was already submitted by the writ petitioner and it is for the competent authority to consider all the merits and demerits and the grounds /objections submitted by the writ petitioner and take a final decision in this regard. Even before such an exercise is done by the competent authority, the writ petitioner has moved this writ petition only to protract and prolong the issue. The show cause notice issued based on the order of cancellation of regularisation is to be allowed to reach its logical conclusion. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, at this stage, more so, in the stage of show cause notice, cannot adjudicate the matter on merits. It is for the competent authority to consider the merits and pass orders on the show cause notice. Every competent authority, who initiated one or the other proceedings under the rules, should be allowed to consider the merits and demerits and take a decision. Intermediate intervention in such matters are not desirable.

¶17

Show cause notice can be challenged on the limited grounds of jurisdiction, incompetency and malafides and if the same is in violation of statutory rules. In the case of raising an allegation of malafides, the authority against whom such an allegation is raised is to be impleaded as a party respondent in the writ proceedings in his personal capacity. In the absence of any one of these legal grounds, no writ can be issued against the show cause notice.

¶18

In the case on hand pursuant to the show cause notice, an explanation was also submitted by the writ petitioner and therefore, it is for the competent authority to consider all the documents and the grounds raised in the explanation in accordance with Rules. By obtaining an interim order in this

¶19

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

¶20

writ petition, the petitioner is continuing in service for about 2 years.

¶21

Under these circumstances, further continuance by virtue of an interim order granted in this writ petition is absolutely undesirable. The Court has to allow the competent authority to take a decision in accordance with law. Intermediate intervention has to be exercised cautiously and cannot be done in a routine manner. Judicial review against the show cause notice under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is certainly limited.

¶22

The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner contended that the rules had not been followed and the authorities has not considered the grounds /objections applicable under the rules and it is not the fault of the writ petitioner. All such explanation /objections are raised in the explanation submitted by the writ petitioner and it is for the competent authority to consider all those objections in accordance with law.

¶23

Thus, this Court is of the clear opinion that no further adjudication on merits in this writ petition at this stage needs to be undertaken and accordingly the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.

¶24

-s/d-
Assistant Registrar(J)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
maya
To

¶25

The Additional Director of Survey & Land Records, Survey House, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶26

The Regional Deputy Director of Survey & Land Records, Coimbatore.

¶27

The District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore.

¶28

The Assistant Director of Survey & Land Records, Coimbatore.

¶29

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

¶30

The Assistant Director of District Employment Office, Coimbatore.

¶31

+1 CC to Mr.M. Gnanasekaran, Advocate sr 56464 +1 CC to Govt. Pleader sr 57448.

¶32

W.P. No.10458 of 2015
SP(28/08/2017)

¶33

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

M.Murugesan v. The Additional Director of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

M.Murugesan v. The Additional Director of

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

Mr.v.Murugan, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

D.Arumuga Perumal Vs The Principal Secretary to

M.Velmurugan, Vs The District Collector

J.Shakthivel Vs The State of Tamilnadu

S.Kamalakannan, Vs Secretary to Government

R.Revathi Vs The Additional Director of