The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a District Collector's order dismissing a Jeep Driver for misconduct. The court found no illegality in the impugned order and denied reinstatement requests.
The petitioner was not reinstated; the impugned order dated 18.02.2020 was upheld; no costs awarded.
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.11257 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.12.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
W.P.No.11257 of 2021
C.Anandharaj
... Petitioner
Vs.
Harur, Dharmapuri District.
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the 3rd respondent passed in his proceedings vide in Na.Ka.No.gnk/m1-78-2020 dated 18.02.2020 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.S.Ashok Kumar
Page 1 of 6
W.P.No.11257 of 2021
for K.L.Sekar For Respondents : Mr.R.U.Dinesh Rajkumar Additional Government Pleader
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed for quashment of the impugned order
dated 18.02.2020 passed by the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.gnk/m1-78-
2020 and to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits.
Page 2 of 6
W.P.No.11257 of 2021
in service.
enquiry, which is unsustainable. Hence, he prayed to reinstate the petitioner in service.
“ 5. He spoke disrespectfully against higher officials, disrupting the work environment.
6. Mr.Anandaraj attempted to disrupt the work of the current Project Officer, similar to his behaviour with the previous Project Officer, which affected the smooth functioning of his work.
7. Mr.Anandaraj was found to drive the office vehicle only from 10:00 am to 6:00 pm., arriving late on occasions when he was expected to report earlier. He also drove at high speeds to meet the time limit, which caused mental stress to the Project Officer. Despite being told to drive cautiously, he showed indifferences to the issue and insisted on hiring a full-
Page 3 of 6
W.P.No.11257 of 2021
time driver according to his wishes.”
11.12.2024
mac Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order
To
Page 4 of 6
W.P.No.11257 of 2021
VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
Page 5 of 6
W.P.No.11257 of 2021
mac
W.P.No.11257 of 2021
11.12.2024
Page 6 of 6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order of dismissal by the District Collector is illegal or arbitrary warranting quashing.
Whether the petitioner deserves reinstatement with continuity of service after dismissal for misconduct.
Whether the High Court should intervene under Article 226 of the Constitution to reinstate the petitioner.
C. Anandharaj
The Director, Tribal Welfare Department
The Project Officer, Tribal Welfare
The District Collector, Dharmapuri
Vivek Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
