Dismissed

K. Balakrishnan, S/O.Krishnan, v. the Government of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC6 Jan 2017WP(MD)/4294/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench disposed of the writ petition filed to quash a suspension order and secure monetary benefits, instead directing the State to decide the pending internal departmental appeal on merits within four months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to consider and decide the petitioner's pending appeal on merits within four months pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.261 and Rule 54(b) of Fundamental Rules.

K. Balakrishnan, S/O.Krishnan, Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu — Madras HC (2017) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 06.01.2017 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR W.P.(MD)No.4294 of 2011

K.Balakrishnan

Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by Secretary to Government, Home Department,

¶8

Fort St.George, Chennai.

¶9

2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli Range, Tirunelveli District.

¶10

3.The Superintendent of Police, District Police Office,

¶11

Tuticorin District.

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

Prayer: The petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 3^rd respondent in proceedings No.C.No.F1/P.R.No.255/05 in D.O.No.1289/08 dated 13.10.2008 and to quash the same and consequently, direct the 3^rd respondent to treat the suspension period of the petitioner as duty period with all monetary benefits.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Prabhu For Respondents : Mr.V.Muruganantham, AGP

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

The prayer in the Writ petition is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 3^rd respondent in C.No.F1/P.R.No.255/05 in D.O.No.1289/08 dated 13.10.2008 and to quash the same and consequently, direct the 3^rd respondent to treat the suspension period of the petitioner as duty period with all monetary benefits.

¶17

2.Heard both sides.

¶18

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

¶19

3.Though the petitioner has come out with the aforesaid prayer, challenging the impugned order passed by the 3^rd

¶20

¶21

respondent dated 13.10.2008 today, Mr.K.Prabhu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that as against the said impugned order dated 13.10.2008, the petitioner has already filed an appeal departmentally to the 2^nd respondent on 22.02.2010 and the same is still pending, without considering the same for passing any orders by the 2^nd respondent.

¶22

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that if a direction is issued by this Court to the 2^nd respondent to decide the said appeal filed by the petitioner on merits and in accordance with law within a time stipulated by this Court, the petitioner would be satisfied.

¶23

5.Heard the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing of the respondents in this regard.

¶24

6.In view of the said limited prayer now has been sought for by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Writ petition is disposed with a direction, directing the 2^nd respondent to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner dated 22.02.2010 as against the order of the 3^rd respondent dated 13.10.2008 and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law of-course by considering G.O.Ms.No.261 Personal and Administrative Reforms (FR III) Department, dated 04.08.1992 as well as Rule 54 (b) of the Fundamental Rules, and pass orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶25

7.With these directions, this Writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar(AE) /True Copy/

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

¶29

1.The Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St.George, Chennai.

¶30

2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli Range, Tirunelveli District.

¶31

3.The Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Tuticorin District.

¶32

+1 cc to Mr.K.Prabhu, Advocate SR.No.1553

¶33

+1 cc to Special Government Pleader SR.No.1514 Nbj

¶34

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ JS/SV/MMS/8.03.2017/2P-6C W.P.(MD)No.4294 of 2011

¶35

06.01.2017

K. Balakrishnan, S/O.Krishnan, v. the Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Balakrishnan, S/O.Krishnan, v. the Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Joint Commissioner/ Vs the Assistant Commissioner

A.Arunadevi, Vs the Chief Educational Officer

C. Francis Xavier, Vs the Presideing Officer

N.Kannaiya, S/O. Nagooran, Vs the District Collector

The Management, Vs the Presiding Officer

M. Sivasubramanian Vs the District Collector