Allowed

N.Palanivel, v. the Thasildar

Madras HC6 Mar 2018WP(MD)/2826/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a Village Assistant suspended on allegations of producing a forged record sheet, challenged the suspension order invoking Rule 17(e) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules claiming detention beyond 48 hours. The Court held suspension serves no purpose absent misconduct, the order contained factual misconceptions, and quashed it.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 01.02.2018 was quashed and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service forthwith.

N.Palanivel, Vs the Thasildar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated : 06.03.2018

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.2826 of 2018 and WMP(MD)No.2978 & 2979 of 2018

N.Palanivel

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Tahsildar, Thuraiyur Taluk, Trichy District. ... Respondent

¶11

Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the respondent in its Rc.No.692/2017(A3) dated 01.02.2018 and quash the same.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.V.VijayShankar For Respondents : Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthaiah, Addl., Government Pleader

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The petitioner is now working as Village Assistant. He was appointed in the said post on 13.07.1992. The petitioner is yet to be retire from service. At this stage, based on complaint from a third party, he has been suspended. Allegation made in the complaint levelled against the petitioner is that he produced a forged record sheet as if he had passed seventh standard.

¶15

2.If the disciplinary authority is of the view that the petitioner had committed any misconduct, it is open to him to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner. No purpose will be served by suspending the petitioner from service. That apart, the impugned order suffers from a factual misconception.

¶16

3.It is true that a criminal case has been registered against the petitioner. But, the affirmative stand taken by the petitioner is that he was never arrested and detained. But, the impugned order has been passed invoking Rule 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules as if he was in detention beyond a period of 48 hours.

¶17

¶18

4.The order impugned in this writ petition is therefore quashed. The respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith.

¶19

5.This writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶20

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CSII) /True Copy/

¶21

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶22

¶23

The Tahsildar, Thuraiyur Taluk, Trichy District.

¶24

+One cc to M/s.V.Karthikeyan, Advocate, SR.No.53229

¶25

+One cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR.No.53633

¶26

skm

¶27

JM/4C/2P/SKN/RSK/SAR4/9/3/2018

¶28

W.P(MD)No.2826 of 2018 and WMP(MD)No.2978 & 2979 of 2018

¶29

06.03.2018

¶30

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

N.Palanivel, v. the Thasildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Palanivel, v. the Thasildar

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

C.Anuradha Vs the Sub Collector

P.Chinnasamy Vs the Senior Regional Manager

R.Charles Vs the Agricultural

N.Chithiraisekar Vs the Director of Rual

D.Ashik Tennison Vs the Director General of Police

Janaki, W/O.M.Arumugam, Vs the Senior Accounts Officer