Dismissed

K.Srinivasan, A.E. (Under v. the Principal Secretary

Madras HC13 Dec 2018WA/1713/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal challenging the dismissal of the Writ Petition against disciplinary proceedings. Noting that the suspension was already revoked by a separate bench and the appellant participated in the enquiry, the court remitted the matter for final orders while allowing the appellant to continue in his non-sensitive post pending finalization.

What did the court decide?

Vacated the stay on passing final orders; directed the disciplinary authority to pass final orders within 30 days after appellant submits a further reply within two weeks; permitted appellant to conti

K.Srinivasan, A.E. (Under Vs the Principal Secretary — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 13.12.2018

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶5

W.A.No.1713 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014

¶6

K.Srinivasan, Assistant Engineer (Under Suspension) PWD, Water Resources Organizatin Krishna Water Supply Project, Sub-Division-IV, THiruvallur, Residing at No.357, Vittilapuram Road, Pudhupattinam, Kalpakkam, Kanchipuram District. .. Appellant/Petitioner vs. The Principal Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009. .. Respondent/Respondent

¶7

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 18.11.2014 made in W.P.No.29900 of 2014. Prayer in W.P.No.29900 of 2014 is filed U/Art 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of the Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus Calling for the records of the Respondent in Letter No. 8407/E1/2006-29 Public Works dated 24.07.2007 and Letter No. 8407/E-1/2006-102 dated 13.08.2014 and to quash the same and direct the Respondent to re-instate the Petitioner in service with all attendant benefits including his promotions.

¶8

For Appellant : Mr.Richardson Wilson for M/s.P.Wilson Asso. For Respondent : Mr.N.Sakthivel Additional Government Pleader

¶9

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

¶10

JUDGMENT

¶11

(Judgment of this Court made by T.S.Sivagnanam,J.)

¶12

This writ appeal filed by the writ petitioner is directed against the order passed in W.P.No.29900 of 2014 dated 18.11.2014. The said writ petition was filed challenging the charge memo and the consequential proceedings and for a prayer to reinstate the petitioner in service with all attendant benefits including his promotion. The writ petition was dismissed by the impugned order.

¶13

2.We have carefully perused the order passed by the learned Single Bench and fully subscribed to the view taken by the learned Single Bench. The appellant participated in the domestic enquiry, the enquiry officer has submitted his report and the disciplinary authority has issued a second show cause notice enclosing the copy of the enquiry officer's report, to which, the appellant has filed his report. However, final orders could not be passed because of an interim order granted in this writ appeal in the year 2014. Subsequently, when the case came up for hearing on 26.03.2018, another Division Bench of this Court thought fit to revoke the order of suspension and directed the appellant to reinstate in service in a nonsensitive post. Mr.Richardson Wilson, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the suspension of the appellant has been revoked and he has been posted in a non-sensitive post. In our considered view, the appellant having participated in the domestic enquiry, the question of now challenging the charge memo does not arise.

¶14

3.The sheet anchor of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant was arrayed as the 4th accused in the criminal case registered by the CBCID, Tiruvannamalai and after full trial, the appellant has been acquitted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Court, Tiruvannamalai by order dated 27.04.2016. It is submitted that the charge sheet in the criminal case is also on the same set of facts. In our considered view, we cannot examine this contention. However, it is well open to the appellant to raise such a contention before the disciplinary authority.

¶15

4.In the light of the above, the stay granted by the Court restraining the respondents from passing final orders is vacated and the appellant is directed to submit a further reply to the second show cause notice within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after which, the disciplinary authority shall pass final orders within a period of thirty days from the date on which appellant submitted the further reply. Till then, the appellant shall be permitted to

¶16

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

¶17

continue in the place where he has been posted as on date based on the interim order granted by another Division Bench in this appeal on 26.03.2018.

¶18

5.With the above observation, the writ appeal is dismissed.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
The Principal Secretary to Government,
Public Works Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai - 600 009.
+1cc to M/S.Wilson Associates, Advocate Sr.86821
+1cc to the Government Pleader Sr.86746
W.A.No.1713 of 2014
and M.P.No.1 of 2014
srg 03/01/2019

¶19

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

K.Srinivasan, A.E. (Under v. the Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Srinivasan, A.E. (Under 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/S Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Tax

M/S Royal Sundram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

S.Shanthi Vs State Human Rights Commission Tamilnadu

P.Kulandaivel Vs The Sub Inspector of Police

S.Krishnan Vs the Commissioner

M/S Chanda Softy Ice Creams Vs the State of Tamilnadu