Disposed

T.Suseela, Junior Inspector v. the Director / Commissioner

Madras HC14 Dec 2018WP(MD)/24694/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court directed the respondent Director to dispose of the petitioner's underlying appeals regarding departmental punishment on merits within four weeks, calling upon the parties to permit final adjudication of the writ petitions.

What did the court decide?

The respondent directed to dispose of the petitioner's appeals on merits within four weeks.

T.Suseela, Junior Inspector Vs the Director /… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 14.12.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)Nos.24694 and 24695 of 2018

¶7

T.Suseela

¶8

... Petitioner in both petitions

¶9

-Vs-

¶10

The Director / Commissioner for Milk Production and Dairy Development,

¶11

Madhavaram Milk,

¶12

Colony, Chennai-51

¶13

..Respondent in both petitions

¶14

COMMON PRAYER:Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent to pass final orders in the appeal preferred by the petitioner dated 22.01.2016 challenging the punishment of three years increment cut without cumulative by the proceedings of the Deputy Registrar (Dairy Department), Nagercoil in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.198/A1/2015 dated 10.10.2015 and Na.Ka.No.371/A1/2015 dated 11.08.2015, respectively by considering her representation dated 25.10.2018 and pass order on merits and in accordance with law within a period that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.M.E.Ilango For Respondent : Mr.J.Gunaseelan Munthiah Additional Government Pleader (in both petitions)

¶16

COMMON ORDER

¶17

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

¶18

2.By consent of both parties, these writ petitions are taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

¶19

3.The petitioner was inflicted with two orders of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ punishment, dated 11.08.2015 and 10.10.2015. Questioning the same, she filed appeals before the respondent / Commissioner. The said appeals are yet to be disposed of. Therefore, the petitioner gave

¶20

¶21

representation on 25.10.2018 for their disposal.

¶22

4.According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the non-disposal of the appeals seriously affects her promotion. Hence, there is an urgency in the matter.

¶23

5.Taking note of the same, the respondent is directed to dispose of the petitioner's appeals on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶24

6.With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶25

¶26

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ( AD I )

¶27

TRUE COPY

¶28

SUB ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ( CS I )

¶29

¶30

¶31

The Director / Commissioner for Milk Production and Dairy Development, Madhavaram Milk, Colony, Chennai-51

¶32

1CC TO MR M.E. ILANGO, ADVOCATE SR 100293 1CC TO THE SPL GOVT PLEADER SR 100618

¶33

KK RSK SAR 1 18 12 2018 2P 4C

¶34

W.P.(MD)Nos.24694 and 24695 of 2018

¶35

14.12.2018

¶36

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

T.Suseela, Junior Inspector v. the Director / Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Suseela, Junior Inspector v. the Director / Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Rajasekar Vs the Regional Transport Officer

T.Rajarajan, Vs the Appellate Authority /

M.Karuppaiah Sadachi, Vs the Govt. of Tamil Nadu

R.Vinoth, S/O.Ramaiya, Vs the Tamil Evangelical Lutheran

D.Sivasu, Vs the Director of Rural

C.Arumugam, Vs the Management of