A retired Junior Assistant challenged his 2005 punishment of a Rs.1,000 fine imposed after disciplinary proceedings, claiming charges had been dropped. The court found the dropping related to an earlier 1984 charge memo and held the 16-year-delayed petition was barred by laches.
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.374 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.07.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
W.P.No.374 of 2016 and W.M.P.No.258 of 2016
V.S.Subramaniam ... Petitioner
Vs.
Chennai – 600 009.
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the 3rd respondent in Na.Ka.No.3992/2004/Ni3 dated 23.03.2005, Na.Ka.No.9293/2014/Ni3 dated 19.03.2015, and Na.Ka.No.9293/2014/Ni3 dated 08.10.2015 and quash the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ______________
_____________ Page No. 1 of 7_
W.P.No.374 of 2016
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Kolandaivelu For Respondents : Mr.V.Jeevagiridharan Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
By this writ petition filed in the year 2016, the petitioner seeks to challenge his punishment order issued on 23.03.2005.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ______________
Page No. 2 of 7
W.P.No.374 of 2016
respondent to pass final orders on the disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner vide his letter dated 17.11.2004. Thereafter, the third respondent passed the final order and by imposing a fine of Rs.1000/-. The petitioner had remitted the fine of Rs.1,000/- and thereafter he was permitted to retire from service with effect from 30.11.2000 by the proceedings of the third respondent dated 18.04.2005. Now, the petitioner had not received his retiral benefits on account of pendency of the disciplinary proceedings.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ______________
_____________ Page No. 3 of 7_
inter alia
W.P.No.374 of 2016
inter alia contending that the petitioner has come to this Court belatedly. He would submit that all the six charges had been proved against the petitioner. The petitioner's allegation is that he was not permitted to retire from service on 30.11.2000 on the ground that the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the third respondent was denied.
Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.
after the punishment has been imposed and on a wrong statement that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page No. 4 of 7_
W.P.No.374 of 2016
charges in respect of this punishment has been dropped. However, from the perusal of the records submitted by the respondents, it is clear that the dropping of charges was with reference to an earlier Charge Memo dated 17.05.1984. Therefore, the petitioner who was slept over on his rights for 16 years cannot seek relief from this Court. That apart, there is absolutely no reason set out as to why the petitioner had taken this long to approach Court to have his grievance redressed.
Consequently, connected writ miscellaneous petition is closed.
03.07.2024
Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order Neutral Citation : Yes / No
jas
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ______________
_____________ Page No. 5 of 7_
W.P.No.374 of 2016
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page No. 6 of 7_
W.P.No.374 of 2016
P.T.ASHA, J.
jas
W.P.No.374 of 2016 and W.M.P.No.258 of 2016
03.07.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ______________
_____________ Page No. 7 of 7_
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a challenge to a 2005 punishment order filed in 2016 should be entertained despite the delay and the petitioner's claim that charges were dropped.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
V.S.Subramaniam
The Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu, Rural Development Department
The Director of Rural Development, Chennai
The District Collector, Salem District
P.T.Asha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
