Dismissed

P. Ramasamy v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC6 Jan 2022WA/3097/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ appeal, the High Court of Madras dismissed the appeal filed by P. Ramasamy challenging the Single Judge's order denying his reinstatement. The appellant was removed from service for departmental charges of cheating involving bogus employment orders. The court upheld the impugned order, deeming the appeal devoid of merits.

What did the court decide?

No reinstatement is granted; the Writ Appeal is dismissed with no costs.

P. Ramasamy Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATE : 06.01.2022

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD

¶5

W.A.No.3097 of 2021

¶6

P.Ramasamy

¶7

... Appellant / Petitioner

¶8

¶9

The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Secretary to Government, Labour and Employment Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶10

The Commissioner of Employment & Training, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. ... Respondents / Respondents

¶11

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the Judgment dated 28.10.2020 passed in W.P.No.28784 of 2005.

¶12

Prayer in W.P.No.28784 of 2005:Writ Petition filed praying to issue a writ of certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in pursuant to Impugned Order passed by the 1st Respondent in G.O.(3D)No.1 Labour and Employment (P2) department dated 11.02.2005 and the impugned review order passed in G.O.(D). No.835 Labour and Employment Department dated 30.11.2006 and quash the orders and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service and allow him to retire from service with effect from 30.06.2002 and settle the entire terminal and pensionary benefits with interest. (Prayer amended as per order dated 08.02.2008 in W.P.MP.No.175/2008 in WP.No.28784/2005)

¶13

For Appellants : Mr.R. Prem Narayan For Respondents : Ms. Geetha Thamaraiselvan Special Government Pleader

¶14

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

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

(Judgment was delivered by M. DURAISWAMY, J.)

¶17

Challenging the order passed in W.P.No.28784 of 2005, the Writ Petitioner has filed the above Writ Appeal.

¶18

2. The appellant filed the Writ Petition to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pursuant to the impugned order passed by the 1 st respondent dated 11.02.2005 and the impugned review order passed by the 1 st respondent dated 30.11.2006 and to quash the orders and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service and allow him to retire forms service with effect form 30.06.2002 and settle the entire terminal and pensionary benefits with interest.

¶19

3. The appellant was working as District Employment Officer and he was removed from service by order dated 11.02.2005. Challenging the said order, the appellant has filed the Writ Petition. B ased on the allegations levelled against the appellant, the following two charges were framed:-

¶20

(i) During the period between 1986 and 1989, he had abused his position, cheated 10 individuals by promising to get employment for them as Clerks or Mazdoors in the Neyveli Lignite Corporation and dishonestly induced them to part with huge amounts and thereafter handed over to them the bogus appointment orders and failed to maintain integrity.

¶21

(ii) The petitioner abused his position, cheated one Sreenivasan of a sum of Rs.25,000/~ by promising to get him a Government job and cheated one Umapathy of a sum of Rs.20,000/~ by promising him a job in Indian Overseas Bank and thereby failed to maintain integrity.

¶22

In the departmental enquiry, since the appellant did not appear for the enquiry, he was set ex parte and the Enquiry Officer filed a report finding two charges framed against him were proved.

¶23

On a perusal of the charges framed against the appellant, it could be seen that he had abused his position, by cheating 10 individuals by promising to get employment for them as Clerks or Mazdoors in the Neyveli Lignite Corporation and dishonestly induced them to part with huge amounts and thereafter handed

¶24

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

¶25

over to them the bogus appointment orders and failed to maintain integrity.

¶26

The conduct of the appellant cannot be condoned in any

¶27

manner whatsoever. The Enquiry Officer, after taking into consideration the evidence let in on the side of the Government, has rightly held that the charges levelled against him are proved. When the appellant had committed grave offence of cheating 10 individuals and issuing bogus appointment orders, he cannot be allowed to continue in service.

¶28

The order passed by the learned Single Judge is just and

¶29

proper. We do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Writ Appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

Assistant Registrar(CS VII)

¶32

//True Copy//

¶33

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶34

¶35

¶36

The Secretary to Government,

¶37

Labour and Employment Department,

¶38

Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶39

The Commissioner of Employment & Training, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.

¶40

+1cc to Mr.R. Prem Narayan, Advocate, S.R.No.1302 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No. 1659

¶41

W.A.No.3097 of 2021

¶42

SRA[co] NSK 25/01/2022

¶43

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

P. Ramasamy v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Ramasamy v. the State of Tamil Nadu

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

N.Balu Vs the Chairman

B.B. Kabeerdhas Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

The Government of Tamil Nadu Vs a. Ananthakalai Selvi

A.Chandirakala Vs Director of Collegiate Edu

S.D.Manohar Kumar Vs Shri S.S. Jain Educational Society

Syed Latheef Vs Syed Mazhar Hussain