Petitioner challenged his 2012 removal as OHT Motor Pump Operator by the Panchayat President without notice or enquiry and sought reinstatement with benefits. Government submitted he was later reappointed in January 2020 and continues in service. Finding nothing survived for adjudication, the High Court closed the writ petition.
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.24021 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.01.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
Writ Petition No.24021 of 2012
P.U.Sambasivan ... Petitioner
Vs.
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus praying to call for the records relevant to the third respondent’s letter dated 11.01.2012 in
Page No.1 of 7
W.P.No.24021 of 2012
removing the petitioner from OHT Motor Pump Operator of Pathakuppam Village and quash the same as illegal, improper, unreasonable, arbitrary against the rule of law and natural justice and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to continue the service of the petitioner as O.H.T. Motor Pump Operator of Pathakuppam Village in the place of fourth respondent and pay back all the service and monetary benefits to the petitioner.
For Petitioner : No Appearance
For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.T.Cheziyan, Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent 4 : No Appearance
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to call for the records relevant to the thrid respondent’s letter dated 11.01.2012 in removing the petitioner from OHT Motor Pump Operator of Pathakuppam Village and
quash the same as illegal, improper, unreasonable, arbitrary against the rule of law and natural justice and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to continue the service of the petitioner as O.H.T. Motor Pump Operator of Pathakuppam Village in the place of fourth respondent and pay back all the service and monetary benefits to the petitioner.
Page No.2 of 7
W.P.No.24021 of 2012
Page No.3 of 7
W.P.No.24021 of 2012
petitioner has sent a representation to the respondents 1 & 2 to take action against the third respondent and to conduct a proper enquiry for his removal from service, but no enquiry or action has been taken by the respondents. Moreover, the third respondent has appointed the fourth respondent in the place of the petitioner in the month of June 2012. Aggrieved over the said dismissal order dated 11.01.2012, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.
respondents 1 to 3 and perused the materials available on record.
Page No.4 of 7
W.P.No.24021 of 2012
30.01.2024
vm
Index : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No
To:
Page No.5 of 7
W.P.No.24021 of 2012
Pallipattu Taluk, Thiruvallur District.
3.The Panchayat President (Kothakuppam Panchayat), Patha Kuppam Village, Kothakuppam Post, Pallipattu Taluk, Thiruvallur District.
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD,J.
vm
Page No.6 of 7
W.P.No.24021 of 2012
W.P.No.24021 of 2012
30.01.2024
Page No.7 of 7
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the removal of the petitioner from the post of OHT Motor Pump Operator without notice or enquiry was illegal and should be quashed?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
P.U.Sambasivan
The District Collector, Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur
The Block Development Officer, Patha Kuppam Village, Kothakuppam Post, Pallipattu Taluk, Thiruvallur District
The Panchayat President (Kothakuppam Panchayat)
G.Palani
J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
