Disposed

L.Arivazhagi v. the District Collector

Madras HC5 Mar 2024WP/5679/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anganwadi Assistant suspended following an FIR in a land dispute involving her family, though she was not named as accused and obtained anticipatory bail only out of abundant caution. The court noted no subsistence allowance was paid and directed the District Project Officer to revisit and revoke the suspension within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to second respondent to revisit and revoke the suspension order within two weeks.

L.Arivazhagi Vs the District Collector — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.5679 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 05.03.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

W.P.No.5679 of 2024

¶7

L.Arivazhagi ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The District Collector, Ranipet District 2.The District Project Officer, Ranipet District 3.The Chief Development Project Officer, Ranipet Municipality, Ranipet District 632 401 4.The State Rep. By Inspector of Police, Arcot Town Police Station, Ranipet District ... Respondents

¶10

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India p raying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for records of the second respondent in Sa.Mu.Na.Ka.No.1186/2023 dated 22.11.2023 and quash the same and direct the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner back in service.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.L.Ramkumar

¶12

1/7

¶13

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

¶14

W.P.No.5679 of 2024

¶15

For Respondents : Mrs.R.L.Karthika, Government Advocate

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of

¶18

suspension passed by the second respondent dated 22.11.2023.

¶19

The petitioner was working as Assistant in Anganwadi

¶20

Centre. There was a land dispute prevailing between her father and her relative i.e. Rajesh. While being so, on 03.09.2023, his relative quarrelled with her husband and another due to previous enmity. In pursuant to the same, the said Rajesh lodged a complaint and the same was registered as against the petitioner's father and her husband in Crime

¶21

No.397 of 2023 on the file of the fourth respondent for the offence under

¶22

Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) of IPC. Later, the offence were altered into under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) & 307 of IPC. However, the petitioner was not arrayed as an accused and on abundant caution, she approached this Court for anticipatory bail in Crl.OP.No.24676 of 2023. This Court granted anticipatory bail by an

¶23

2/7

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.No.5679 of 2024

¶26

order dated 31.10.2023. Thereafter, she executed surety and she was enlarged on bail. However, the second respondent, in pursuant to the FIR, suspended the petitioner.

¶27

Heard, the learned counsel appearing on either side.

¶28

On perusal of the order of suspension, revealed that the

¶29

petitioner was arrested and remanded and subsequently released on bail. Further revealed that the petitioner was not arrested in pursuant to the registration of FIR in Crime No.397 of 2023. She was granted anticipatory bail in Crl.OP.No.24676 of 2023 by an order dated 31.10.2023. That apart, the petitioner was not an accused as per the FIR in crime No.397 of 2023. Only by way of abundant caution, the petitioner approached this Court and obtained anticipatory bail. That apart, the petitioner was not paid any subsistence allowance after order of suspension.

¶30

Considering the above, the second respondent is directed to

¶31

3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

W.P.No.5679 of 2024

¶33

revisit the order of suspension and pass orders to revoke the order of suspension within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶34

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶35

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

05.03.2024

¶37

Internet: Yes Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order lok

¶38

4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

W.P.No.5679 of 2024

¶40

¶41

1.The District Collector, Ranipet District

¶42

2.The District Project Officer, Ranipet District

¶43

3.The Chief Development Project Officer, Ranipet Municipality, Ranipet District 632 401

¶44

4.Inspector of Police, Arcot Town Police Station, Ranipet District

¶45

5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

W.P.No.5679 of 2024

¶47

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

¶48

lok

¶49

W.P.No.5679 of 2024

¶50

6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶51

W.P.No.5679 of 2024

¶52

05.03.2024

¶53

7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

L.Arivazhagi v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

L.Arivazhagi v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Iyyappan Vs state of tamilnadu

M.Jothi Lakshmi Vs Commissioner of Labour

G.John Anthony Vs The Government of TamilNadu

S.Ramesh Vs the District Collector

S.Latha Vs the Director of Tamil Nadu

N.Anbumoorthy Vs the Managing Director