Allowed

R.Abraham v. the Director

Madras HC8 Mar 2017WP(MD)/1606/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner challenged alleged misappropriation of salary arrears funds by respondents. The court allowed the petition in part, directing the first and second respondents to consider a specific representation dated 25.07.2016 and dispose of it within one month, while noting that other respondents had not had their representations considered.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents 1 and 2 to consider the representation dated 25.07.2016 relating to alleged misappropriation and to dispose of the same within one month.

R.Abraham Vs the Director — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 08.03.2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM

¶6

and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.AUTHINATHAN

¶7

W.P(MD)No.1606 of 2017

R.Abraham

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Director,

¶12

Office of the Elementary Education, Government College Road,

¶13

Chennai – 600 006.

¶14

2.The District Educational Officer, District Elementary Education, Thoothukudi Educational District, Thoothukudi.

¶15

3.The Assistant Educational Officer, Department of Elementary Education, Alwarthirunagari Union, Thoothukudi District.

¶16

4.The Correspondent,

¶17

TNDTA Middle School, Meerankulam, Thoothukudi District.

¶18

5.D.Harbansingh Premkumar .. Respondents

¶19

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to conduct a proper enquiry in the commission of illegality, irregularity and also in committing fraud, foul play in misappropriating substantial amount under the caption of salary arrears from the Government Exchequer by the respondents 2, 3, 4 and 5 forthwith and launch subsequent criminal prosecution in the event of the same is found to be proved in the enquiry proceedings as against them in pursuance of the petitioner's representation dated 25.07.2016 to the first https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent.

¶20

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Palani Velayutham For RR 1 to 3 : Mr.M.Govindan, Special Government Pleader. For R – 4 : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu For R – 5 : Mr.A.Ajith Geethan

¶22

ORDER

¶23

[Order of the Court was made by A.SELVAM, J.] This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to initiate action against the respondents 3 to 5 in respect of alleged illegality, irregularity and misappropriation alleged to have been done by them, by way of issuing a writ of mandamus.

¶24

2.The learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent has contended that proper action has already been taken against the fifth respondent.

¶25

3.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 has contended to the effect that already recovery proceedings have been initiated.

¶26

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that totally a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- has been misappropriated. But the authorities have initiated action only to recover a paltry sum of Rs.1,00,000/-.

¶27

5.It is seen from the records that on 25.07.2016 a representation has been given by the petitioner. But the same has not been considered. Under the said circumstances, this Court is inclined to pass the following order.

¶28

6.In fine, this writ petition is allowed in part without costs and the respondents 1 and 2 are strictly directed to look into the representation dated 25.07.2016 and dispose of the same within a period of one month.

¶29

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS II) /True Copy/

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

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

¶32

¶33

¶34

1.The Director, Office of the Elementary Education, Government College Road, Chennai – 600 006.

¶35

2.The District Educational Officer, District Elementary Education, Thoothukudi Educational District, Thoothukudi.

¶36

3.The Assistant Educational Officer, Department of Elementary Education, Alwarthirunagari Union, Thoothukudi District.

¶37

4.The Correspondent, TNDTA Middle School, Meerankulam, Thoothukudi District.

¶38

+1cc to special Government Pleader Sr.No.13444 +1cc to Mr.S.Palanivelayutham, Advocate SR.No.13257 +1cc to Mr.A.Ajith Geethan, Advocate Sr.No.13311

¶39

ps sm:skn:15.3.2017:3P/8c

¶40

ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.1606 of 2017 08.03.2017

¶41

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

R.Abraham v. the Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Abraham v. the 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

Dr. T. Sam Elango Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

K.Princy, Vs the Superintendent of Police

Muthiah, Vs Tahsildar

Star Model Matriculation Vs the Commissioner of Town and

Balagurusamy Vs the District Collector

Susila, Vs the District Collector