Disposed

B.Mohammed Siraj v. The Principal Secretary to Government

Madras HC18 Jun 2024WP(MD)/12791/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Bench of Madras High Court directed respondents to conclude pending disciplinary proceedings against petitioner within three weeks and permitted challenge to any adverse punishment order allowing retrial on merits.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to complete disciplinary proceedings within three weeks; liberty granted to challenge adverse orders.

B.Mohammed Siraj Vs The Principal Secretary to… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.12791 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 18.06.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.12791 of 2024 and WMP(MD) No.11374 of 2024

B.Mohammed Siraj

... Petitioner

The Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Secretariat, Chennai.

¶11

The Commissioner of Municipal Administration,

¶12

6^th Floor, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records from the 2^nd respondent in his proceedings of the Charge memo in ROC No. 22991/ 2018/ C2, dated 20.08.2018 quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner having retired from service on 31.08.2018 on the dated of his superannuation with all attended benefits and continuity of service.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr. Rm.Arun Swaminathan

¶16

For Respondents : Mr.J.Ashok Additional Government Pleader

¶17

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

¶18

1/6

¶19

W.P.(MD).No.12791 of 2024

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Heard Mr.Rm.Arun Swaminathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.J.Ashok, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶22

2 .The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the proceedings of the 2^nd respondent in the Charge memo in ROC No. 22991/ 2018/ C2, dated 20.08.2018 and consequently to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner having retired from service on 31.08.2018 on the date of his superannuation with all attended benefits and continuity of service.

¶23

3 .The petitioner, who has been suspended prior to 6 years on certain allegation, subjected to disciplinary proceedings has not been given with any order so far. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the charge memo and the disciplinary proceedings are to be quashed and also to set aside the suspension order and permit him to retire from service.

¶24

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

¶25

2/6

¶26

W.P.(MD).No.12791 of 2024

¶27

4 .The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents

¶28

submitted that the enquiry has been completed and to his knowledge orders have also been passed.

¶29

5 .However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

¶30

orders has not been passed for the enquiry and the petitioner has not been given with a second show-cause notice.

¶31

6 .In such circumstances, the respondents are directed to conclude the disciplinary proceedings, in accordance with law, within a period of three weeks, from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In the event of the petitioner is getting any adverse order on the ground that the charges against him have been proved and he has been given with any punishment, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the same by raising the points, which have been canvassed in this writ petition including the inordinate delay.

¶32

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

¶33

3/6

¶34

W.P.(MD).No.12791 of 2024

¶35

7 .With the above direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶36

There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶37

18.06.2024

¶38

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes PNM

¶39

¶40

The Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Secretariat, Chennai.

¶41

The Commissioner of Municipal Administration,

¶42

6^th Floor, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶43

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

¶44

4/6

¶45

W.P.(MD).No.12791 of 2024

¶46

R.N.MANJULA, J.

¶47

PNM

¶48

ORDER IN W.P.(MD).No.12791 of 2024 and WMP(MD0 No.11374 of 2024

¶49

18.06.2024

¶50

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

¶51

5/6

¶52

W.P.(MD).No.12791 of 2024

¶53

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

¶54

6/6

B.Mohammed Siraj v. The Principal Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Mohammed Siraj v. The Principal Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.Mngaiyarkarasi Vs The Registrar

S.Karthick Vs The Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Dr. v.R.Eswara Ramanan, Vs The Director

C.Kuttithai Vs The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission

G.Saravanan Vs The Registrar of Cooperative Societies

B .Mujibur Rahman Vs The District Collector (Personal Assistant Development)