The High Court of Madras closed the Writ Petition and connected petitions due to the death of the sole petitioner, which deemed the disciplinary proceedings abated and entitled LRs to death benefits under the Disclosure Proceedings Rule.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No.7859 of 2020 & W.M.P.Nos.9268 & 9270 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.11.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.P.No.7859 of 2020 & W.M.P.Nos.9268 & 9270 of 2020
... Petitioners
[P-2 to P-5 are substituted as LRs of the deceased sole petitioner vide order dated 08.09.2023 made in W.M.P.No.2795 of 2023 in W.P.No.7859 of 2020]
versus
... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the concern records relating to the Order No.Na.Ka.No.20/2020/C1, dated 23.12.2019 passed by the first respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential monetary and other service benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Pavendhan for Mr.S.Rajanikanth
1/4
W.P.No.7859 of 2020 & W.M.P.Nos.9268 & 9270 of 2020
For Respondent No.1 : Mr.M.Rajamathivanan For Respondent No.2 : Mr.T.Chezhiyan Additional Government Pleader
O R D E R
The petitioner has filed this petition seeking for a writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the Order No.Na.Ka.No.20/2020/C1, dated 23.12.2019 passed by the first respondent
and quash the same and consequently, direct the first respondent to reinstate
the petitioner in service with all consequential monetary and other service benefits .
2. Heard Mr.G.Pavendhan for Mr.S.Rajanikanth learned counsel
for the petitioners, Mr.M.Rajamathivanan, learned counsel for the first respondent, Mr.T.Chezhiyan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the second respondent and perused the materials available on record.
3. Today when the matter was taken up for hearing, it is reported by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the sole petitioner itself died on 28.09.2022. As per the Disciplinary Proceedings Rule, if any Government servant died during the pendency of the disciplinary
2/4
W.P.No.7859 of 2020 & W.M.P.Nos.9268 & 9270 of 2020
proceedings, the charge would deem to have got abated against him. Under
such circumstances, his death benefits would be payable to his nominees /LRs in accordance with law.
4. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is closed. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
02.11.2023 Speaking order / Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No
sri
To
3/4
W.P.No.7859 of 2020 & W.M.P.Nos.9268 & 9270 of 2020
R.N.MANJULA, J.
sri
W.P.No.7859 of 2020 & W.M.P.Nos.9268 & 9270 of 2020
02.11.2023
4/4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition seeking reinstatement can be allowed after the death of the sole petitioner.
Whether to close the pending petitions in light of the abatement of disciplinary proceedings on death.
S.Rajanikanth (Legal Rep.)
The Commissioner, Erode Corporation
The Inspector of Police, Erode South Police Station
R.N.MANJULA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
