Disposed

P.Revathi Vallaban v. The Additional Director

Madras HC8 Aug 2017WP/823/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner challenged the pendency of disciplinary proceedings, having been removed from service and subsequently restored with liberty to continue proceedings. The court directed the respondents to conclude the proceedings within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

The second respondent is directed to pass final orders on the disciplinary proceedings within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

P.Revathi Vallaban Vs The Additional Director — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 08-08-2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

W.P.No.823 of 2016

¶7

P.Revathi Vallaban .. Petitioner
vs.
1.The Additional Director of Agriculture,
Office of the Commissioner of Agriculture,
Chennai-600 005.
2.The Joint Director of Agriculture,
Thiruvallur,
Thiruvallur District. .. Respondents

¶8

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner pursuant to the show cause notice issued by the third respondent in A1-14151-99 dated 6.5.2013.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Mohanraj

¶10

For Respondents : Mr.K.Dhananjayan, Special Government Pleader.

¶11

The relief sought for in this writ petition is for a direction to

¶12

respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the http://www.judis.nic.in writ petitioner.

¶13

The writ petitioner was holding the post of Deputy Manager

¶14

¶15

in the Department of Agriculture and on account of certain allegations, a charge memo was issued against the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner was placed under suspension and departmental enquiry was conducted. Thereafter, the writ petitioner was directly removed from service, against which he preferred an appeal and the appeal was allowed and liberty was granted to continue the disciplinary proceedings from the place in which the error took place. An enquiry was conducted and a final enquiry report was also submitted. The writ petitioner submitted his explanations/ objections on the enquiry report. Though on 5.6.2013, the writ petitioner submitted his explanations, no final order has been passed in the disciplinary proceedings.

¶16

Thus, without going into the merits and the demerits of the case, the second respondent is directed to consider the materials available on record and pass final orders on the disciplinary proceedings, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly the writ petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶17

Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order. Index : Yes/No. Internet : Yes/No. m, Svn

¶18

¶19

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶20

1.The Additional Director of Agriculture, Office of the Commissioner of Agriculture, Chennai-600 005.

¶21

¶22

2.The Joint Director of Agriculture, Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur District.

¶23

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶24

¶25

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

Svn

WP No.823 of 2016

08-08-2017

http://www.judis.nic.in

P.Revathi Vallaban v. The Additional Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Revathi Vallaban v. The Additional Director

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

C.Lawrence Vs The Commissioner

P.Ramesh Vs The Director General

D.Basheera Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

S.Vijayakumar, Vs The Principal Secretary/

O.Srinivasan, Vs Director of Public Health and

R.Muthumanickam, Vs The Managing Director