Disposed

R.Anusuya v. The Dean

Madras HC23 Mar 2021WP/2737/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition sought to quash orders terminating the petitioner's service and claiming consequential benefits. Upon hearing, the court noted the imposition of punishment was modified via a prior Government Order (G.O. No.433 dated 22.03.2021). Consequently, no further orders were required and the petition was closed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was closed with no further orders required given the modification of the impugned punishment.

R.Anusuya Vs The Dean — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN The HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 23.03.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

The HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶5

W.P.No.2737 of 2021 and WMP No.3072 of 2021

¶6

R.Anusuya ... Petitioner

¶7

-vs-
1. The Dean,
Government General Hospital,
Chennai – 3.
2. The Director of Medical Education,
Kilpauk, Chennai 10.
3. The Secretary to Government,
Health Family Welfare (I-1) Department,
Fort St George, Chennai 9.
4. The Director & Professor,
Institute of Forensic Medicine,
Madras Medical College,
Chennai 3. ... Respondents

¶8

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondents in connection with the impugned orders passed by the 2^nd respondent in Proceedings No.26091/SCII/1/2006, dt 25.09.2006 and by the 3^rd respondent in GO (D) No.898, Health & Family Welfare (I-1) Dept, dt 29.09.2020, quash the same and direct the respondents to superannuate the petitioner from service and grant her all consequential service and monetary benefits.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.Venkataramani, Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Muthappan

¶10

For Respondents: Mr.S.Karthikeibalan, Government Advocate

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

This Writ petition is filed, to quash the impugned orders in Proceedings No.26091/SCII/1/2006, dated 25.09.2006 and GO (D) No.898, Health & Family Welfare (I-1) Dept, dt 29.09.2020 passed by the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents respectively and for a

¶13

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

¶14

consequential direction to the respondents to superannuate the petitioner from service and grant her all consequential service and monetary benefits.

¶15

2.Mr.S.Karthikeibalan, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents.

¶16

When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents has produced a copy of the Government Order in G.O.(D) NO.433, Health and Family Welfare (I-1) Department, dated 22.03.2021 wherein the punishment imposed on the petitioner, has been modified.

¶17

In view of such modification in punishment vide G.O(D) No.433, Health and Family Welfare (I-1) Department, dated 22.03.2021, no further orders are required in this Writ petition. Accordingly, this Writ petition is closed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶18

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
vum
To
1. The Dean,
Government General Hospital,
Chennai – 3.
2. The Director of Medical Education,
Kilpauk, Chennai 10.
3. The Secretary to Government,
Health Family Welfare (I-1) Department,
Fort St George, Chennai 9.
4. The Director & Professor,
Institute of Forensic Medicine,
Madras Medical College,
Chennai 3.
+1cc to Mr.M.Muthappan, Advocate, S.R.No.18911
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.19146
W.P.No.2737 of 2021 and
WMP No.3072 of 2021
AD(CO)
KM(19/04/2021)

¶19

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

R.Anusuya v. The Dean

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Anusuya v. The Dean

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

V.Murugaiyan Vs The Chairman

T.R.Vijayalatha Vs Director

M.Lakshmi Narayanan Vs Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission

Kalaiarasi Vs The President

C.Seran Vs The State of Tamilnadu

K.Maruthupandian Vs The Commissioner of Milk Production