Disposed

G.Pakirisamy v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC1 Dec 2023WP/29709/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a government order imposing censure, the High Court disposed of the matter as the original petitioner had passed away and the subsequent removal from service punishment had been set aside by a different court prior to the disposal of this current petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands disposed of; consequential miscellaneous petitions were closed. No costs.

G.Pakirisamy Vs the Secretary to Government — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.29709 of 2011

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 01.12.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶6

W.P.No.29709 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2011

G.Pakirisamy

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Secretary to Government Tamil Development Culture and Religious Endowment Department Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009. ... Respondent

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records connected with the Government order issued in G.O.(Pa).No.356 Tamil Development Culture and Religious Endowment (A.Ni.2-2) Department dated 22.09.2011 passed by the respondent and quash the same.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ilamvaludhi

¶13

For Respondent : Mrs.Geetha Thamaraiselvan Special Government Pleader

¶14

Page 1 of 4

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

W.P.No.29709 of 2011

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 22.09.2011 in and by which the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of 'Censure'.

¶19

2.When the matter came up for hearing today, it is brought to the knowledge of this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that pending Writ Petition, a further Charge Memo was issued to the petitioner and by which, he was imposed with the punishment of removal from service. As against the said Charge Memo, petitioner had filed a W.P.No.9733 of 2014.

¶20

3.As a matter of fact, since the petitioner had passed away, Legal

¶21

Heirs were substituted. By an order dated 17.10.2022, removal from service

¶22

has been set aside and the LR's were declared to be entitled for all the consequential benefits.

¶23

Page 2 of 4

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

W.P.No.29709 of 2011

¶26

4.In that view of the matter, since the petitioner has passed away and the punishment in the present case is only a censure, nothing survives to adjudicate the matter further in this Writ Petition.

¶27

5.Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶28

Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶29

01.12.2023

¶30

Jer Index:Yes Speaking Order: Yes Neutral Citation: No

¶31

To The Secretary to Government Tamil Development Culture and Religious Endowment Department Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶32

Page 3 of 4

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

W.P.No.29709 of 2011

¶35

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.,

¶36

Jer

¶37

W.P.No.29709 of 2011

¶38

01.12.2023

¶39

Page 4 of 4

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

G.Pakirisamy v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Pakirisamy v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Ponnaiyan Vs the Secretary

A.Kumar Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

L.Ayyanar, Vs Chief Educational Officer

K.Durairaj, Vs the District Collector Cum

The District Collector Vs S. Duraisamy

V.Kattappan (Died) 1. K.Magesh Vs The Government of India