Dismissed

K.Kalaivani v. The Disciplinary Authority

Madras HC20 Jul 2021WP/14828/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chief Justice Banerjee disposed of a writ petition seeking reinstatement and certiorari, quashing prior orders and directing reinstatement. The court held the petition was misconceived and contrary to a previous order of Feb 22, 2021, which directed the petitioner to prefer an appeal before approaching the writ court.

What did the court decide?

No orders as to costs; consequent writ miscellaneous petitions closed.

K.Kalaivani Vs The Disciplinary Authority — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 20.07.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶7

W.P.NO.14828 OF 2021

¶8

K.Kalaivani .. Petitioner

¶9

¶10

The Disciplinary Authority Principal District Judge Kancheepuram

¶11

at Chengalpet.

¶12

The Inquiry Officer District Munsif, Madurantakam Chengalpet District.

¶13

The Principal District Munsif Kancheepuram. .. Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the 1st respondent in order A.No.550/2018 D.No.2099/A/2020 dated 13.5.2020 of the 1st Respondent and the consequential order in D.No.241/2020 dated 27.5.2020 of the 3rd respondent and quash the said orders and to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner service with all attendant service benefits.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Chandrasekar

¶16

For Respondents : Mr.B.Vijay

¶17

ORDER

¶18

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶19

This petition is utterly misconceived and even contrary to the leave granted by an order dated February 22, 2021 passed on a previous petition of this erstwhile employee in the district judiciary.

¶20

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

¶21

The earlier petition, W.P.No.16915 of 2020, was disposed of without going into the merits of the matter with the observation that the writ petitioner had not availed of the opportunity to prefer an appeal and had directly approached the writ court. At the second paragraph of the order dated February 22, 2021, the petitioner was permitted to prefer an appeal within a fortnight, whereupon, the Registrar-General was required to place the matter for an appellate authority to be constituted.

¶22

Instead of following such course of action as clearly spelt out in the previous order, this further, frivolous writ petition has been instituted.

¶23

Since the earlier writ petition was disposed of without going into the merits of the matter on the ground that the petitioner had not availed of the appellate remedy, the present writ petition is also disposed of without going into the merits. However, in the event the appeal that may have been preferred by the petitioner is barred by time, the petitioner will have only herself to blame.

¶24

W.P.No.14828 of 2021 is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.15700 and 15702 of 2021 are closed.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶27

//True copy//

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

bbr

¶30

To:

¶31

The Disciplinary Authority

¶32

Principal District Judge

¶33

Kancheepuram

¶34

at Chengalpet.

¶35

The Inquiry Officer

¶36

District Munsif, Madurantakam Chengalpet District.

¶37

The Principal District Munsif Kancheepuram.

¶38

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

¶39

Copy To

¶40

The Registrar General, High Court, Madras – 104.

¶41

The Section Officer, Legal Cell, Madras – 104.

¶42

+1cc to Mr.P.Chandrasekar, Advocate SR.No.349024

¶43

W.P.No.14828 of 2021

¶44

MG(CO) RLP(26/07/2021)

¶45

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

K.Kalaivani v. The Disciplinary Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Kalaivani v. The Disciplinary Authority

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

M.N.Saravanan Vs The Collector

V.Sugumaran Vs U.Uma Devi

M/S.Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs M/S.Atm Constructions (P) Ltd.

S.Gopalakrishnan Vs The Chief Secretary to Govenment

N.Vasudevan Vs The Registrar General

Iyarkai Valam Matrum Perumpalla Odai Padukappu Nala Sangam Vs The Secretary to Government