Remanded

S. Krishna Mohan, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC20 Nov 2018WP(MD)/23094/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged his suspension alleging delay in disciplinary enquiry. The court directed the state to either appoint a new enquiry officer or proceed if no prejudice exists, mandating completion within six months, unless caused by the petitioner's delay.

What did the court decide?

The first respondent to appoint a new enquiry officer or proceed with the existing one and complete the enquiry within six months.

S. Krishna Mohan, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED:20.11.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.23094 of 2018 and W.M.P(MD) No.20994 of 2018

S.Krishna Mohan

... Petitioner

vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Additional Chief Secretary, Industries Department,

¶11

Secretariat, Chennai.

¶12

2.The Principal Secretary to Government, Industries Department,

¶13

Secretariat, Chennai.

¶14

3.The Commissioner of Geology and Mining,

¶15

Guindy, Chennai.

¶16

4.The Director,

¶17

Department of Geology and Mining,

¶18

Industrial Estate, Guindy,

¶19

Chennai.

¶20

5.The District Collector, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi. ... Respondents

¶21

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the second respondent in his proceedings in G.O(D) No.45, Industries (E.1) Department dated 21.03.2017 and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents herein to permit the petitioner to discharge his duties as Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, Thoothukudi District with all other attendant benefits.

¶22

For Petitioner :Mr.D.Srinivasaragavan For Respondents :Mr.C.Ramar,

¶23

Additional Government Pleader.

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶28

2.The writ petitioner herein was placed under suspension on 21.03.2017 on grievous charge of misconduct punishable under Rule 17 (e) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. One of the charges against the writ petitioner is that knowing fully well that he is not the competent authority to issue the certificate for mining beach sand minerals, he has issued certificate for mining beach sand in favour of some third parties. After suspension, the writ petitioner was asked to show cause why action should not be taken against him for the charges framed against him. After obtaining the documents, he has given his explanation on 10.04.2018. The Director of Geology and Mining has appointed one Thanga Muniyaswamy, Deputy Director of Geology and Mining, Thanjavur District as the enquiry officer and the same has been communicated to the the writ petitioner on 09.05.2018.

¶29

3.The grievance of the writ petitioner herein is that it is the said Thanga Muniyaswamy, who has withheld certain documents which are very relevant for the enquiry proceedings and the document which is the subject matter of the first charge framed against the writ petitioner. Hence, he sought for change of enquiry officer. The representation for change of enquiry officer nominated is dated 25.05.20108.

¶30

4.It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner that after receiving his request for change of enquiry officer, the first respondent herein has not appointed new enquiry officer as per his representation and nor the present enquiry officer has commenced the enquiry proceeding, since he was placed under suspension in March 2017. In this writ petition he seeks for writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the suspension order dated 21.03.2017.

¶31

5.From the affidavit of the petitioner, it is very clear that the delay in commencing the enquiry is not solely because of the respondent herein.The petitioner herein has attributed for the delay and even now he is not inclined to face enquiry proceedings before the present officer, since he attributed prejudice against him. He has already given the representation to the first respondent and the same is pending.

¶32

6.In the said circumstances, the prayer sought in the writ petition is untenable. However, the respondents herein cannot keep the writ petitioner under suspension without progress in the enquiry proceedings. The first respondent shall take a decision whether to change the enquiry officer and appoint a new enquiry officer and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ proceed with enquiry or if deem fit that no prejudice is caused to the writ petitioner if the enquiry is conducted by the Thanga

¶33

¶34

Muniyaswamy, Deputy Director of Geology and Mining, Thanjavur District, the same shall be communicated to the writ petitioner as expeditiously as possible and take all measures to complete the enquiry within a reasonable time. In any event, the enquiry officer shall not delay the completion of enquiry proceedings beyond six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the petitioner herein is cause for delay, the time limit fixed by this Court will not have any bearing.

¶35

7.With the above observation, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶36

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶37

/True Copy/

¶38

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)

¶39

To:

¶40

1.The Additional Chief Secretary, Industries Department, Secretariat, Chennai.

¶41

2.The Principal Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Secretariat, Chennai.

¶42

3.The Commissioner of Geology and Mining, Guindy, Chennai.

¶43

4.The Director, Department of Geology and Mining, Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai.

¶44

5.The District Collector, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.

¶45

+1cc to Mr.D.Srinivasaragavan Advocate in SR.No.96210 +1cc to Special Government Pleader, SR.No.96109

¶46

W.P.(MD) No.23094 of 2018 and W.M.P(MD) No.20994 of 2018 20.11.2018

¶47

¶48

SPRSK SAR4 17.12.2018 3P 8C

¶49

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

S. Krishna Mohan, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Krishna Mohan, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

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

K.Ramesh, Vs the Joint Director of School

Ramakrishnan Vs the District Treasury Officer

M.Ramalingam, Vs the Secretary to Govt.

S.Rajaram Vs the Commissioner

V.Gabriel, Vs the Accountant General

K. Gandhi Alwar (M/78/2018) Vs the Principal Secretary/