A writ appeal challenged a Single Judge's order directing the reinstatement of a suspended employee. The Division Bench upheld the reinstatement direction but exercised supervisory jurisdiction to direct the department to conclude pending disciplinary proceedings within four months.
Appellants directed to conclude pending disciplinary proceedings within four months.
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.A.No.673 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.06.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. KUMARESH BABU
W.A.No.673 of 2022
S.Murugan ... Respondent
Page 1 of 5
W.A.No.673 of 2022
PRAYER
PRAYER : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act to allow the writ appeal and thereby set aside the order dated 04.08.2021 made in W.P.No.16196 of 2018 on the file of this Court.
For Appellants : Mr. K.Rajkumar, Standing Counsel For Respondents : Mr.Sai Shankar
JUDGMENT
(Order of the Court was delivered by D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.)
This intra-court appeal has been filed, as against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.16196/2018, dated 04.08.2021, in and by which, the appellants herein were directed to re-induct the respondent/
writ petitioner into any non sensitive post, away from the headquarters, where the disciplinary proceedings is pending against the petitioner and when the petitioner cannot indulge in any alleged corruption, on or before
01.09.2021.
2. The respondent was placed under suspension on 10.11.2014 by the
appellant/ Department and as against the above suspension order, he filed the writ petition, wherein, the learned single Judge has passed the order, as
stated above.
Page 2 of 5
W.A.No.673 of 2022
Page 3 of 5
W.A.No.673 of 2022
the appellant/Department has to take further course of action as against the respondent. The respondent is also directed to co-operate the appellant to conclude the disciplinary proceedings, without any further delay.
In so far as reinstatement of the respondent is concerned, the direction
passed by the learned Single Judge does not require interference at this point of time.
10.06.2024
Internet: Yes/No Index : Yes/No mst
Page 4 of 5
W.A.No.673 of 2022
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J. and K. KUMARESH BABU, J.
mst
W.A.No.673 of 2022
10.06.2024
Page 5 of 5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Single Judge's direction to re-induct the suspended employee into a non-sensitive post?
Whether the disciplinary proceedings pending against the employee should be completed within a specific timeframe?
The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited
The Chief Engineer -Personnel, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited
The Chief Engineer-Distribution, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited
The Superintending Engineer, Thiruvannamalai Electricity, Distribution Circle
S. Murugan
D. Krishna Kumar
K. Kumaresan Babu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
