Allowed

Tamil Mannan, v. the District Collector

Madras HC8 Mar 2018WP(MD)/2095/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petitioner, a Noon Meal Organizer suspended due to unrelated criminal charges, approached the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court seeking reinstatement. The Court held the suspension was legally valid but unnecessary for the facts and directed the second respondent to revoke it and reinstate the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Second respondent directed to revoke the suspension order dated 05.01.2018 and reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith.

Tamil Mannan, Vs the District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated : 08.03.2018

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.2095 of 2018 and WMP(MD)No.2347 of 2018

Tamil Maravan

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, (Noon Meal Division), Madurai District, Madurai. 2.The Commissioner, Kottampatti Panchayat Union, Kottampatti, Madurai District. ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to consider the revocation of suspension order dated 05.01.2018 issued to the petitioner and reinstate the petitioner with all attendant benefits in the light of petitioner representation dated within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶12

For Petitioner : M/s.K.Malathi For Respondents : Mr.M.Jeyakumar, Additional Govt.Pleader for R1 Mr.V.Anand for R2

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The petitioner is employed as a Noon Meal Organizer. He got involved in a criminal case. He was arrested. Therefore, he was suspended from service by order dated 05.01.2018. The order suspending the writ petitioner cannot be faulted. But, then no purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner under suspension.

¶15

2.This is because the acts that led to the implication in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ criminal case has nothing to do with the discharge of the official duties by the petitioner. Therefore, the second respondent is

¶16

¶17

directed to revoke the order of suspension and reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith.

¶18

3.This writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶19

Sd/Assistant Registrar(RTI) /True Copy/

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

¶22

1.The District Collector, (Noon Meal Division), Madurai District, Madurai.

¶23

2.The Commissioner, Kottampatti Panchayat Union, Kottampatti,

¶24

Madurai District.

¶25

+1CC to M/s.K.Malathi, Advocate, SR.No. 53738

¶26

+1CC to the Special Government Pleader SR.No.54210

¶27

W.P(MD)No.2095 of 2018 and WMP(MD)No.2347 of 2018 08.03.2018

¶28

skm

¶29

AM/SKN RSK/SAR 2/12.03.2018/2P/5C

¶30

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

Tamil Mannan, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tamil Mannan, v. the District Collector

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

Thangathai, W/O.Rajagopal, Vs the District Collector,/Cum

Dr.R.Lakshmipathy Vs the Joint Commissioner of

Sivanesan, Vs Union of India, New Delhi

S.Vellaiammal, Vs the Commissioner

S.Vasanthi Vs the District Educational

The Correspondent Vs the State of Tamil Nadu