Dismissed

C.Shanmugam, v. the District Collector

Madras HC12 Nov 2021WP/26736/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the writ petition seeking reinstatement of service as infructuous. The court observed that the petitioner's criminal charges were dropped following an acquittal, and terminal benefits had already been settled, leaving nothing to adjudicate. No costs awarded.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as infructuous; connected miscellaneous petition closed. No costs.

C.Shanmugam, Vs the District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 12.11.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶5

W.P.No. 26736 of 2009 and M.P.No. 1 of 2009

¶6

C.Shanmugam ..Petitioner

¶7

¶8

The District Collector, Erode District, Erode.

¶9

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Erode, Erode District. ..Respondents

¶10

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for writ of Certiorarified mandamus, calling for records on the file of the second respondent relating to the order issued in Na.Ka.No.9114/2008/A2, dated 07.12.2009 and quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential service and monetary benefits.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.R. Chandrasekaran For Respondents : Mr.T.Arun Kumar, GA

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

Challenge in the writ petition is the impugned suspension order passed by the second respondent while pending criminal charges framed against the petitioner.

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that pursuant to the suspension order, the charges were framed against the petitioner under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules by the 2^nd respondent vide proceedings dated 23.04.2018. Subsequently, a case in Special C.C.No. 32/2005 filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Erode vide Crime No. 12/AC/2008/ER was ended in acquittal based on the judgment

¶15

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

¶16

passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode. Pursuant to the dropping of charges, the respondent has settled the terminal benefits to the petitioner as stated in paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit filed by the 2^nd respondent.

¶17

In view of subsequent events taken place, nothing survives for adjudication in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed as having become infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is close.

¶18

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)

¶19

//True Copy//

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

¶22

¶23