V.Perumal v. the Director
Case brief
What is this about?
Petitioner challenged a charge memo issued before retirement, seeking pension benefits. Court cleared the way for the disciplinary inquiry, directing completion within five months, and dismissed the writ petition.
What did the court decide?
The writ petition was dismissed. The respondents were directed to complete the disciplinary enquiry within five months of receiving a copy of this order.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.04.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
W.P. No.10182 of 2009
V.Perumal
.. Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Director, The Director of Municipal Administration, Kuralagom, Chennai 108.
2.The Commissioner, Municipal Office, Attur Municipality, Salem District. .. Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the Charge Memo dated 29.05.2008 in Na.Ka.No.112/2008/C1 of the second respondent and quash the same and consequentially direct the respondents to pay all pensionary benefits with 18% of interest.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.R.Nixon
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner was compelled to answer the charge memo prior to retirement which was already disqualified.
Whether the disciplinary inquiry could be completed despite the pendency of the writ petition challenging the charge memo.
Whether the writ petition filed to quash the charge memo and direct pension payment should be allowed.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
V. Perumal
- respondent
The Director, The Director of Municipal Administration, Kuralagom, Chennai
- respondent
The Commissioner, Municipal Office, Attur Municipality
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court