Dismissed

Z.Ibrahim, v. The Principal Secretary/

Madras HC7 Jul 2017WP/9013/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash a show cause notice and direct settlement of retirement benefits, holding that factual disputes regarding the application must be resolved through the notice-reply process before the authorities.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; connected Miscellaneous Petition closed; no order as to costs.

Z.Ibrahim, Vs The Principal Secretary/ — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 07.07.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

W.P.No.9013 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.9926 of 2017

¶6

Z.Ibrahim ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Principal Secretary/Commissioner
of Treasuries & Accounts,
Panagal Building, Saidapet,
Chennai – 600 015.
2. The District, Treasury Officer,
Virudhunagar District.
3. The Assistant Treasury Officer,
Srivilliputhur,
Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents

¶7

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS, calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings No.3092/2017/N1 dated 14.03.2017 and quash the same, and direct the respondents to settle the retirement benefits and confer all the consequential benefits to the petitioner, considering the representation made for retired benefits on 18.05.2016 and 06.09.2016.

¶8

For Petitioners : Mr.C.Selvaraj, Senior Counsel for M/s. C.S. Associates For Respondents : Mr.K.Dhananjeyan Special Government Pleader O R D E R

¶9

Heard C.Selvaraj, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.Dhananjeyan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing on either side, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage.

¶10

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

¶11

2.What is challenge in this Writ Petition is a show cause notice issued by the second respondent on 14.03.2017.

¶12

3.The scope of challenging the show cause notice itself is to be confined to the extent of not having jurisdiction for the authority who issued the show cause notice, an incompetent authority issued the same or such a show cause notice was issued with the malafide intention to deprive the right of the writ petitioner. None of these grounds are raised in this Writ Petition and the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner contended that it is not the case where the writ petitioner has not submitted proper leave application. In fact, the writ petitioner had submitted an application for voluntary retirement to the competent authorities, which was not taken into consideration in time nor it was forwarded to the authorities to pass appropriate orders, who is competent to issue orders.

¶13

4.On perusal of the impugned notice, it is stated that the writ petitioner remained absent on various spells. Further, it is stated in the notice that the application for voluntary retirement said to be submitted by the writ petitioner has not been recommended by the Assistant Treasury Officer. There is a dispute in this regard.

¶14

5.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner contended that the application for voluntary retirement was properly submitted to the competent authorities and now they are taking a different stand in the show cause notice.

¶15

6.May that it be, this Court cannot go into these disputes relating to the submission of application by the writ petitioner or forwarding the same to the authorities concerned. These are all the factual aspects which should be adjudicated by the writ petitioner by submitting proper explanation to the show cause notice along with the required documents. The scope of challenging the show cause notice is very much limited and the Courts are to be very cautious in entertaining the writ petition challenging the show cause notice filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petitioner cannot adjudicate the merits and demerits of the case by challenging the show cause notice.

¶16

7.For the aforementioned reasons, this Court is inclined to accept the contents in the impugned show cause notice which clearly stipulates that the writ petitioner has to submit his explanation within a period of fifteen days from the date of notice. But, instead of submitting his explanations/objections to the authorities concerned, the writ petitioner has chosen to

¶17

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

¶18

file this present writ petition to quash the show cause notice. This Court is of the firm view that the show cause notice issued by the second respondent cannot be quashed nor the arguments on merits advanced by the learned Senior Counsel deserves no further consideration, in view of the fact that it is left open to the writ petitioner to submit all his objections/explanations to the authorities concerned to enable them to consider the same. Such being the factum of the case, the grounds raised in the writ petition deserves no further consideration.

¶19

8.Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed, no further order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶20

s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CS-III)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
ah/rpa
To
1. The Principal Secretary/Commissioner
of Treasuries & Accounts,
Panagal Building, Saidapet,
Chennai – 600 015.
2. The District, Treasury Officer,
Virudhunagar District.
3. The Assistant Treasury Officer,
Srivilliputhur,
Virudhunagar District.
+1 CC to M/s. C.S. Associates, sr 47832
+1 CC to Govt. Pleader sr 47661

¶21

W.P.No.9013 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.9926 of 2017

¶22

SP(29/07/2017)

¶23

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

Z.Ibrahim, v. The Principal Secretary/

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Z.Ibrahim, v. The Principal Secretary/

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

M.Narasimman, Vs The Commissioner

P.Venkatachalam Vs The Government of Tamilnadu

G.Srinivasan Vs The Joint Registrar of

P.Rajendran Vs The governmnt of Tamilnadu

J.Rajendran Vs The Registrar of

Tamilnadu Gandhiya Anaithu Vs The Secretary to Government