Partly allowed

V.Adharathiah v. 1.THE Govt., of India, Rep.by

Madras HC7 Dec 2017WP/30515/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a dismissal order under Article 226. The Court held the appeal pending before the Appellate Authority must be decided on merits within two months, mandating a personal hearing for the petitioner before a final decision is taken.

What did the court decide?

Disposal of the Writ Petition; Direction to decide the pending appeal on merits within two months and afford the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing.

V.Adharathiah Vs 1.THE Govt., of India, Rep.by — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 07.12.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR

¶5

W.P.No.30515 of 2003

¶6

V.Adharathiah … Petitioner Vs. 1.The Government of India, Rep. by the Secretary, Ministry of Shipping, Transport Bhavan, Port Wing, No.1, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110 001. 2.The Chairman, Chennai Port Trust, Chennai-1. 3.The Traffic Manager, Chennai Port Trust, Chennai-1. … Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for all relevant records relating to the impugned order of dismissal issued in proceedings No.P2/400/97/TP dated 04.07.1998 along with proceeding dated 08.05.2003 in No.P2/194/2003/T[P] passed by the Traffic Manager, Chennai Port Trust, Chennai-1, the 3^rd respondent herein and quash the same as arbitrary, unreasonable, improper, illegal, against the rules and regulations of the respondents, violating the principles of Natural Justice and Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and thereby direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service as Mazdoor under the office of the 2^nd respondent herein with continuity of service and backwages, with all consequential and other monetary benefits.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Srinivasan For Respondents : Mr.Madanagopal Rao, Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for R1 Mr.Sathya Narayana Prasad for R2 and R3

¶8

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

¶9

ORDER

¶10

The prayer sought for in this Writ Petition is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order of dismissal issued in proceedings No.P2/400/97/TP dated 04.07.1998 along with proceeding dated 08.05.2003 in No.P2/194/2003/T[P] passed by the 3^rd respondent, quash the same and consequently, direct the 2^nd respondent to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service, back wages, and all other consequential and monetary benefits.

¶11

2.I have heard Mr.S.Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.Madana Gopal Rao, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondent and Mr.Sathya Narayana Prasad, learned Standing counsel appearing for the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents.

¶12

3.Mr.S.Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner sought for the prayer of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order impugned, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service, he would submit that the petitioner would be satisfied, if a direction is given to the 2^nd respondent to decide the appeal filed by him against the dismissal, on merits and in accordance with law within a time frame stipulated by this Court.

¶13

4.I have heard Mr.Madana Gopal Rao, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent, in this regard.

¶14

5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that because of the reason of alleged unauthorised absent, the petitioner has been inflicted with the punishment of dismissal from service, however, the defence taken by the petitioner by producing necessary Medical Certificates have not been properly considered by the Enquiry Officer without which the disciplinary authority namely, the 3^rd respondent had accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer and inflicted maximum punishment of dismissal from service. He would further submit that he has raised a substantial ground on such order passed by the 3^rd respondent in his appeal filed before the 2^nd respondent, who is the appellate authority before whom the appeal is still pending consideration sofar.

¶15

6.Considering the said submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and on hearing Mr.Madana Gopal Rao, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent as well as Mr.Sathya Narayana

¶16

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

¶17

Prasad, learned Standing counsel appearing for the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents, I am inclined to pass the following orders:

¶18

(1)The appeal filed by the petitioner on 06.06.2003 to the 2^nd respondent/Appellate Authority against the order of punishment made by the 3^rd respondent, vide his order dated 04.07.1998, be decided on merits and in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶19

(2)Before deciding the appeal of the petitioner, the appellate authority/2^nd respondent shall give an opportunity to be heard to the petitioner and in this regard, a communication to be made by the 2^nd respondent to the petitioner fixing the date for such personal hearing and on receipt of such communication from the 2^nd respondent office, the petitioner shall appear before the 2^nd respondent or his authorised Officer where the petitioner shall be at liberty to put forth his case including the grounds he urges against the impugned order of dismissal and on hearing the petitioner, a final decision can be taken by the 2^nd respondent in the appeal and accordingly, the decision can be communicated to the petitioner. With these directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Sd/Deputy Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar mps To 1.The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Shipping, Transport Bhavan, Port Wing, No.1, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110 001. 2.The Chairman, Chennai Port Trust, Chennai-1. 3.The Traffic Manager, Chennai Port Trust, Chennai-1.

¶20

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

¶21

+1cc to Mr.S.Srinivasan, Advocate, S.R.No.87010

¶22

+1cc to Mr.J.Madanagopal Rao, Advocate, S.R.No.86764

¶23

+1cc to Mr.J.Sathya Narayana Prasad, Advocate, S.R.No.87172

¶24

W.P.No.30515 of 2003

¶25

RRK(11/01/2018)

¶26

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

V.Adharathiah v. 1.THE Govt., of India, Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Adharathiah v. 1.THE Govt., of India, Rep.by

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

G.Nagarajan Vs National Textile Corpn Rep by

M/S K.G.M.Minerals P.Ltd. Vs the Government of India

A. Paul Vs the Chief Engineer, Highways &

R.Meerakani Vs the Special Commission and

K.v.Durai Manickam Vs the Deputy Commissioner (C.T.)

N.Gunasekaran Vs the Secretary