Dismissed

C.Anuradha v. the Sub Collector

Madras HC5 Mar 2018WP(MD)/4427/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a Village Administrative Officer, challenged a charge memo via a writ petition. The Court dismissed the petition as premature, noting that quashing requires limited grounds not established by the petitioner and that factual innocence must be proven later.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the charge memo dated 09.01.2018 was denied; the writ petition was dismissed as premature.

C.Anuradha Vs the Sub Collector — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 05.03.2018

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.4427 of 2018 and WMP(MD)No.4518 of 2018

¶7

C.Anuradha ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Sub Collector, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District.

¶10

Bhagavathi, Personal Assistant To District Collector,

¶11

Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli. ... Respondents

¶12

Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari by calling for the entire records pertaining to the charge memo issued by the first respondent vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A4/13266/2017 signed on 09.01.2018 and quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Anand For Respondents : Mrs.S.Srimathy, Special Government Pleader

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Mrs.S.Srimathy, the learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents.

¶16

2.By consent of both parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶17

3.The petitioner is working as a Village Administrative Officer. She questions the charge memo dated 09.01.2018. A charge memo can be quashed only on certain limited grounds. The petitioner has not shown that her petition for quashing the charge https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ memo comes within those limited grounds.

¶18

4.The petitioner will of course be given an opportunity to

¶19

¶20

prove her innocence. It is not possible for this Court to interfere at this stage. The writ petition is dismissed as premature. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner wants to peruse the original documents. It goes without saying that the petitioner will be entitled to such a perusal.

¶21

5.With this observation, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar (CS-II)

¶24

/True Copy/

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

¶27

The Sub Collector, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District.

¶28

The Personal Assistant To District Collector,

¶29

Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

¶30

- 1 CC TO Mr.P.ANAND, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 53262

¶31

- 1 CC TO SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER IN SR No. 53363

¶32

SKM

¶33

TE/KKR/SAR-4 : 03/05/2018 : 2P/5C

¶34

W.P(MD)No.4427 of 2018 and WMP(MD)No.4518 of 2018 05.03.2018

¶35

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

C.Anuradha v. the Sub Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Anuradha v. the Sub 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

V.Palaniyandi, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

A.Sivanantham, Vs the Director

S.Ravi Vs the State of Tamilnadu

S.Alagaraj, Vs the General Manager/

Mohan, S/O.Arumugam, Vs the Senior Commandant

Punjab National Bank Vs the Joint Commissioner