Allowed

M.Vinayagamurthy v. the State Represented by the Additional Chief Secretary Cum Home

Madras HC2 Aug 2023WP/4124/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a writ petition filed by a dismissed Home Guard petitioner. The Court set aside the removal order issued without considering a reply sent by registered post. The petition was allowed to provide the petitioner another opportunity to explain his absence. Dismissal was quashed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned removal order set aside. Writ petition allowed. Petitioner directed to submit fresh explanation within ten days. Authority to pass detailed order on merits.

M.Vinayagamurthy Vs the State Represented by the… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.4124 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 02.08.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

W.P.No.4124 of 2022

M.Vinayagamurthy

... Petitioner

Versus

1.The State represented by

¶11

the Additional Chief Secretary cum Home Secretary,

¶12

Govt. of Tamil Nadu, Home Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George,

¶13

Chennai – 600 009.

¶14

2.The Deputy Secretary,

¶15

Govt. of Tamil Nadu, Home Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶16

3.Deputy Police Commissioner (Law & Order), Tiruppur City, Tiruppur.

¶17

4.Police Commissioner, Tiruppur City, Tiruppur.

¶18

5.Area Commander, Home Guards, Tiruppur City, Tiruppur.

¶19

6.ADGP/Director of Civil Defence & Additional Commandant General, Home Guards (Tamil Nadu),

¶20

Chennai.

¶21

Page No.1 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

W.P.No.4124 of 2022

¶23

7.Inspector General of Police/Deputy Commandant General, Home Guards (Tamil Nadu), Chennai-600 004. ... Respondents

¶24

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus (or) any other Writ (or) directions calling for the records of Removal Order proceedings Na Ka A No.91/2019, Na Ka No.A4/869/20761/2018, Dated 08.03.2019 issued by the 4^th respondent and to quash the orders of the 4^th respondent's removal order in Removal Order proceedings vide Na Ka A No.91/2019, Na Ka No.A4/869/20761/2018, Dated 08.03.2019 and consequently petitioner be re-instated in the service of the Tamil Nadu Home Guards at Tiruppur along with back wages from the date of petitioner dismissal till the date of reinstatement.

¶25

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Ravishankar For Respondents : Mr.P.Balathandayutham, Special Government Pleader

¶26

ORDER

¶27

This Writ Petition has been filed to call for the records of removal

¶28

order in Na.Ka.A.No.91/2019, Na.Ka.No.A4/869/20761/2018, dated 08.03.2019 issued by the 4 th respondent and quash the same and consequently, the petitioner be reinstated in the service of the Tamil Nadu Home Guards at Tiruppur along with back wages from the date of the petitioner's dismissal till the date of reinstatement.

¶29

2.The case of the Writ Petitioner is that he was working in Tamil Nadu Home Guards at Thiruppur since 2006. A show cause notice, dated

¶30

Page No.2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

W.P.No.4124 of 2022

¶32

13.02.2019 has been issued to the petitioner by the 3 rd respondent seeking explanation for not appearing duty for four days. It is alleged in the show cause notice that despite intimation sent in Whatsapp group and also through phone, the petitioner has not appeared for duty. Thereafter, the impugned dismissal order has been passed on 08.03.2019 by the 4 th respondent mainly on the ground that no reply whatsoever was given by the petitioner to the show cause notice, dated 13.02.2019.

¶33

3.It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court that immediately on receipt of show cause notice, on 28.02.2019 the petitioner has given his reply and sent the same through registered post, however, the same has not been placed before the concerned authority. Due to which, the impugned dismissal order has been passed. To substantiate the same, the postal receipt, dated 28.02.2019 addressed to the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Law & Order) is placed on record. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner met with accident on 28.06.2016. In this regard, an FIR in Crime No.566 of 2016, dated 29.06.2016 for offence under Sections 279 and 337 has been registered by the Sub Inspector of Police, Avinashi Police Station, Thiruppur.

¶34

Page No.3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

W.P.No.4124 of 2022

¶36

Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was admitted in City Ortho Hospital, Thiruppur.

¶37

4.Considering the fact that the petitioner sent his reply through registered post on 28.02.2019, this Court is of the view that the impugned dismissal order passed merely on the ground no reply has been received from the petitioner, is not proper and the removal of service, in fact, is without proper opportunity to the petitioner. Having issued the show cause notice, the 4 th respondent ought to have verified whether the absence of the petitioner is wilful or for any other valid reason as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court. It is the further contention of the petitioner that due to the accident in the year 2016, four plates were implanted due to bone injuries sustained by the petitioner. Only to remove such plates, the petitioner took medical leave at the relevant point of time.

¶38

5.Considering the facts and evidence before this Court, this Court is of the view that the impugned dismissal order has to be set aside and the petitioner has to be given one more opportunity. Accordingly, the impugned order in Na.Ka.A.No.91/2019, Na.Ka.No.A4/869/20761/2018, dated

¶39

Page No.4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

W.P.No.4124 of 2022

¶41

08.03.2019 passed by the 4 th respondent is set aside and this Writ Petition stands allowed.

¶42

6.The petitioner is directed to submit fresh explanation to the 4 th respondent, within a period of ten days, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such explanation, the 4 th respondent shall pass detailed order on merits considering the medical records if any produced by the petitioner.

¶43

No costs.

¶44

02.08.2023

¶45

Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order vv2

¶46

¶47

1.The Additional Chief Secretary cum Home Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Home Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶48

2.The Deputy Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Home Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶49

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

¶50

Page No.5 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶51

W.P.No.4124 of 2022

¶52

3.The Deputy Police Commissioner (Law & Order), Tiruppur City, Tiruppur.

¶53

vv2

¶54

4.The Police Commissioner, Tiruppur City, Tiruppur.

¶55

5.The Area Commander, Home Guards, Tiruppur City, Tiruppur.

¶56

6.The ADGP/Director of Civil Defence & Additional Commandant General, Home Guards (Tamil Nadu), Chennai.

¶57

7.The Inspector General of Police/Deputy Commandant General, Home Guards (Tamil Nadu), Chennai-600 004.

¶58

W.P.No.4124 of 2022

¶59

02.08.2023

¶60

Page No.6 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

M.Vinayagamurthy v. the State Represented by the Additional Chief Secretary Cum Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Vinayagamurthy v. the State Represented by the Additional Chief Secretary Cum Home

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

S.Naveen Vs The District Collector

E.Thanappan Vs The Chief Engineer / Personal

Mr. K.Senthilkumar Vs TamilNadu State Transport corporation

K.C.Ravichandran Vs The Additional Chief Secretary to Government

V.Jaisankar Vs Director of Medical Education

V.Jayaprakash Vs the Chairman