Disposed

M.Narasimman, v. The Commissioner

Madras HC6 Jul 2017WP/17171/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging disciplinary suspension and charges, the High Court of Madras, finding the proceedings delayed by over 2.5 years, directed the respondents to complete the enquiry and pass a final order within six months, moulding the prayer accordingly. The petition stands disposed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to complete disciplinary proceedings and pass final order within six months from receipt of the order.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 06.07.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

W.P. No. 17171 of 2017

¶6

& W.M.P. No. 18655 of 2017

¶7

M.Narasimman .. Petitioner
Vs
1. The Commissioner,
Arcot Municipality Office,
Arcot, Vellore District.
2. Director of Municipal Administration,
Municipal Administration Office,
Chennai 600005. .. Respondents

¶8

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st Respondents to consider and pass orders on the Petitioner's representations dated 25.04.2017 and 14.06.2017 by (i) withdrawing the charges levelled against him (ii) revoking the suspension of the Petitioner and; (iii) reinstating him in service, with all consequential benefits within a time limit stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.

¶9

For Petitioner : Ms.Y.Kavitha & K.Nithyashree for M/s.Giridhar and Sai

¶10

For Respondents : Mr.K.Dhanajeyan (For R1 to R2)

¶11

Special Government Pleader

¶12

Though the writ petitioner sought for a prayer to consider his representations dated 25^th April 2017 and 14th June 2017 in order to withdraw the charges leveled against him and to revoke the suspension order, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner restricted the relief by stating that it is suffice, if a direction is given to complete the disciplinary

¶13

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

¶14

proceedings. The prayer sought for as such in this writ petition cannot be considered by this Court.

¶15

But, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner firmly conceded that the prayer in this writ petition can be moulded to the extent of issuing direction to complete the disciplinary proceedings.

¶16

In view of the fair submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and considering the fact that the charge memo was issued on 17th June 2014 and the writ petitioner was placed under suspension on 25th September 2014 and the disciplinary proceedings are pending for past more than 2 and half years, this Court is inclined to direct the respondents to complete the enquiry and pass final order in the disciplinary proceedings, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, by affording all reasonable opportunities to the writ petitioner under the Rules.

¶17

With this direction, the writ petition stands disposed
of. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CS VIII)
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
To
1. The Commissioner,
Arcot Municipality Office,
Arcot, Vellore District.
2. Director of Municipal Administration,
Municipal Administration Office, Chennai-05.
+1cc to M/s.Governement Pleader in sr.no.47344
W.P.No. 17171 of 2017
SR(CO)
NR 21/7/2017

¶18

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

M.Narasimman, v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Narasimman, 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

Mr. R.Gandhi Vs The Superintendent of Police

S.Ramesh Vs The Union of India

S. Yakub Khan, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu rep.by

P.Chitra Kala Devi Vs The Secretary to Government

M.Jothi Vs The Secretary to Government of

R.Madhaiyan Vs The Secretry to Government