Dismissed

K.Mohammed Mohideen v. the Joint Commissioner of

Madras HC16 Jun 2022WP(MD)/13195/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed under Article 226 seeking quashing of an enquiry report and punishment order, the Madras High Court Bench dismissed the petition as infructuous. The court held that the petitioner had retired with superannuation and terminal benefits, leaving no cause of action for adjudication. Permission was granted and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition and connected miscellaneous petition dismissed as infructuous; permission granted.

K.Mohammed Mohideen Vs the Joint Commissioner of — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.13195 of 2014

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 16.06.2022 CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN

¶5

W.P.(MD)No.13195 of 2014 and M.P.(MD) No.2 of 2014

¶6

K.Mohammed Mohideen ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs .

¶8

1.The Joint Commissioner of Labour (Admn), O/o. the Commissioner of Labour, D.M.S. Compound, Teynampet, Chennai - 600 006.

¶9

2.The Inspector of Labour Thoothukudi, 66, Thattar Street, Thoothukudi.

¶10

3.The Enquiry Officer Deputy Inspector of Labour, (In Charge), Thiruchendur. ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the enquiry report dated 29.4.2014 submitted by the third respondent vide number Nil and the consequential impugned punishment order issued by the second respondent vide No.A/733/2013 dated 25.06.2014 and quash the same as illegal.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Arul Vadivel @ Sekar For Respondents : Mr.J.John Rajadurai, Government Advocate

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation and he was also paid the terminal benefits and therefore, this writ petition has become infructuous, as nothing survives for further adjudication in this matter and the learned counsel has also made an endorsement to that effect.

¶15

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

¶16

1/2

¶17

W.P.(MD)No.13195 of 2014

¶18

2. Considering the submissions and endorsement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, permission is granted. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/-

¶19

Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶20

// True Copy //

¶21

/06/2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶22

¶23

¶24

1.The Joint Commissioner of Labour (Admn), O/o. the Commissioner of Labour, D.M.S. Compound, Teynampet, Chennai - 600 006. 2.The Inspector of Labour Thoothukudi, 66, Thattar Street, Thoothukudi. 3.The Enquiry Officer Deputy Inspector of Labour, (In Charge), Thiruchendur.

¶25

W.P.(MD)No.13195 of 2014 16.06.2022

¶26

ma(CO) TR(24.06.2022) 2P 4C

¶27

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

¶28

2/2

K.Mohammed Mohideen v. the Joint Commissioner of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Mohammed Mohideen v. the Joint Commissioner of

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

V.Rajam, Vs the District Collector

The District Manager / Vs P. Murugan

M.Thangavel, S/O.Madasamy, Vs the State of Tamilnadu

S. Flora Stella, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

R.Babu Vs D.Jagannathan,I.a.S

K.Haridas Vs the Govt. of Tamil Nadu