Disposed

R.Kaviyam v. the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings

Madras HC3 Nov 2020WP(MD)/15237/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court directed the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings to ensure the petitioners appeared before it by 30.11.2020 and concluded the proceedings on merits within one year. The court emphasized this was an outer time limit and proceedings should not be kept pending just for that duration.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Tribunal to ensure appearance of petitioners by 30.11.2020 and conclude proceedings on merits and in accordance with law within one year from then.

R.Kaviyam Vs the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.15237 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 03.11.2020

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.15237 of 2020

¶7

1.R.Kaviyam

¶8

2.R.Vijayaveeran

¶9

3.P.Karpaga Vinayagam

4.A.Malarkodi

5.M.Mookkusamy

6.V.Arunadevi

7.G.Gopalan

:Petitioners

Vs.

1.The Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Madurai.

¶17

2.The State through

¶18

the Inspector of Police,

¶19

Directorate of Vigilance and Anticorruption, Sivagangai District.

¶20

(Crime No.01/2019).

¶21

3.G.Senthilvelu :Respondents

¶22

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the first respondent to complete the enquiry in TDP.No.04/2020 and pass final orders within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶23

For Petitioners : Mr.M.Kannan For R1 & R2 : Mr.A.Robinson Government Advocate (Crl.side)

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶26

2.The petitioners are facing proceedings before the Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioners wants the enquiry in question to be completed expeditiously.

¶27

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

¶28

1/2

¶29

W.P.(MD)No.15237 of 2020

¶30

3.The petitioners' counsel states that they have been informed that the matter has been referred to the Tribunal. But, they are yet to receive summons from the Tribunal. The first petitioner is suffering from blood cancer and the second petitioner retired from service. Some of the other petitioners are also having some grievance.

¶31

4.I find the said request to be reasonable. The Tribunal is directed to ensure that the petitioners appear before the Tribunal on 30.11.2020. The proceedings will be concluded on merits and in accordance with law within one year thereafter. I make it clear that this one year is only an outer time limit. That does not mean that the proceedings should be kept pending for one year.

¶32

5.This Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶33

Assistant Registrar(RTI)

// True Copy //

Skm

Note :

In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶38

To:

¶39

1.The Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Madurai.

¶40

2.The Inspector of Police, Directorate of Vigilance and Anticorruption, Sivagangai District.

¶41

+1 CC to M/s.M.KANNAN, Advocate ( SR-20885[F] dated 03/11/2020 )

¶42

W.P.(MD)No.15237 of 2020 03.11.2020

¶43

NS(CO) TR(23.11.2020) 2P 4C

¶44

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

¶45

2/2

R.Kaviyam v. the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Kaviyam v. the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muthurakku Vs M.Pallavii Bal Dev

M.Selvakumar Vs the District Collector

P.Srinivasan Vs The Inspector of Police

Manjula Arsupillai Vs The Inspector of Police

Chinnathambi Vs Deivam

Karpagam Vs The Inspector of Police