Disposed

D.Devagi v. the Director General of Police

Madras HC27 Aug 2024WP/24416/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought mandamus for departmental action against a government servant respondent. The Court held that once the respondent retired, the employer-employee relationship ceased, precluding disciplinary proceedings, and directed the petitioner to seek remedy in the appropriate forum against the individual.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of. Petitioner left to seek remedy in appropriate forum.

D.Devagi Vs the Director General of Police — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Writ Petition No.24416 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 27.08.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

Writ Petition No.24416 of 2024

Mrs.D.Devagi

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Director General of Police, O/o. The Director General of Police, No.1, Kamarajar Road, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.

¶11

The Superintendent of Police, Nilgiris District.

¶12

The Inspector of Police, Kunnur Police Station, Nilgiris District.

¶13

Mr.D.Dinakaran ... Respondents

¶14

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1^st respondent to pass orders on the representation dated 06.12.2023 and 08.05.2024 by taking appropriate departmental action against the 4^th respondent as per the Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct Rules by conducting Departmental enquiry.

¶15

For Petitioners : Mr.T.Velu For Respondents : Mr.P.Balathandayutham

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

1/4

¶18

Writ Petition No.24416 of 2024

¶19

Special Government Pleader for R1 to R3 *****

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This writ petition has been filed for the issue of writ

¶22

of Mandamus directing the 1 st respondent to pass orders on representation

¶23

dated 06.12.2023 and 08.05.2024 and take departmental action against the 4 th respondent as per the Tamil nadu Government Servants Service Rules.

¶24

Heard Mr.T.Velu, learned counsel for the petitioner

¶25

and M r.P.Balathandayutham, learned Special Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3.

¶26

A careful reading of the affidavit filed in support of

¶27

the writ petition shows that the 4 th respondent has submitted voluntary retirement and the same was accepted and he was permitted to retire from service on 31.03.2024. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that her complaint was given much earlier and the same was not considered and illegally the 4 th respondent was permitted to retire from service. Therefore, at this juncture, the petitioner seeks for a direction to take

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

2/4

¶30

Writ Petition No.24416 of 2024

¶31

disciplinary proceedings against the 4 th respondent.

¶32

The petitioner may be having a very genuine grievance against the 4 th respondent. However, the moment the 4 th respondent has retired from service, the employer and employee relationship ceases to exist. Once that relationship is snapped, there is no question of directing the respondent to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the 4 th respondent. In view of the same, it is left open to the petitioner to work out her remedy before the appropriate forum in accordance with law against the 4 th respondent in his individual capacity. Except giving this clarity, no further orders can be passed in this writ petition.

¶33