Allowed

K.Muralidharan, v. the District Collector

Madras HC8 May 2017WP/6232/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a disciplinary notice issued under service rules due to a prior criminal conviction. The High Court quashed the notice, holding that it lapsed following the setting aside of the conviction in a subsequent Criminal Revision Petition, and allowed the petitioner's plea.

What did the court decide?

The impugned notice issued by the first respondent in Proceeding No.24047/2009/A3 dated 28.02.2013 is quashed.

K.Muralidharan, Vs the District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 08.05.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

W.P.No.6232 of 2013 M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶6

K.Muralidharan ...Petitioner /versus/

¶7

The District Collector,
Collectorate,
Namakkal.
2. The District Revenue Officer,
Namakkal.
3. The Special Tahsildar,
Natham Land Revenue Scheme,
Tiruchengode. ...Respondents

¶8

Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, or order or direction in the nature of Writ, calling for records relating to the first respondent vide proceedings No.Roc.No.24047/2009/A3 dated 28.02.2013, and to quash the same.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vijayakumar For R1 and R3 : Mr.K.DhanaJeyan (SGP)

¶10

The present Writ Petition is filed, challenging the notice issued by the first respondent in Proceeding dated 28^th February, 2013 directing the writ petitioner to submit his explanations with regard to the conviction on a criminal charge under Section 384 of IPC awarded by the Judicial Magistrate Court, Tiruchengode in C.C.No.363 of 2005 dated 9^th July, 2009.

¶11

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that while ordering conviction, the writ petitioner was levied with a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default sentenced to simple imprisonment for one week. As against the order of conviction, the writ petitioner preferred a Criminal Appeal in Crl.A.No.54 of 2009 and the order of conviction was confirmed by

¶12

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

¶13

the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal on 9^th October 2009.

¶14

Challenging both the orders, the writ petitioner filed Crl.R.C.No.126 of 2014 and this Court allowed the said Criminal Revision Petition on 4^th November 2016 and the order of conviction was set aside and the fine paid by the writ petitioner was also directed to be returned. Hence, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner the notice issued by the first respondent under Rule 17(c)(i)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, lapses in view of the said order passed by this Court in Criminal Revision Petition.

¶15

Further, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner represents that the writ petitioner was allowed to retire from service pursuant to the order of the District Revenue Officer, Namakkal dated 28^th March 2017.

¶16

As far as the impugned notice issued under Rule 17(c(i) (1) is concerned, the same is liable to be quashed on account of the Judgment rendered in Criminal Revision Petition.

¶17

In view of these facts, the writ petition deserves consideration and accordingly the impugned notice issued by the first respondent in Proceeding No.24047/2009/A3 dated 28.02.2013 is quashed and the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶18

Sd/-
Asst.Registrar
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
rna
To
1. The District Collector,
Collectorate,
Namakkal.
2. The District Revenue Officer,
Namakkal.

¶19

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

¶20

The Special Tahsildar, Natham Land Revenue Scheme, Tiruchengode.

¶21

+1cc to Mr.S.Vijayakumar, Advocate Sr. 36827

¶22

+1cc to the Government Pleader Sr. 36966

¶23

W.P.No.6232 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶24

NM(CO) VR(17/5/2017)

¶25

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

K.Muralidharan, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Muralidharan, v. the District Collector

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

K.G.Rajendran Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

G.Vijayan Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

J.Antony Xavier Vs the Govt of Tamilnadu Rep

C. Krishnamurthy Vs the Commr. Hr & Ce

K.Perumal Vs the Special Tahsildar

V.Ramaswamy, Vs The Managing Director