Dismissed¶23

M.G.Ubayadullah v. the Chairman

Madras HC6 Feb 2025WA/155/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chennai Port Trust employee; dismissal from service dated 04.10.2008; challenge after 11 years; delay and laches; no justifiable explanation for delay; habitual offender; unauthorized absence 23.09.1990-26.08.1993; 279 days absent in 2004; 164 days absent in 2005; discharge on 25.02.1993 and reinstatement on lenient view; W.P.No.1094 of 2020 decided on 27.08.2024; Clause 15 Letters Patent writ appeal; Madras High Court Division Bench; R.Subramanian J. (author) with G.Arul Murugan J.; decided 06.02.2025; appeal dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Since the petitioner had not given any justifiable reason to explain the laches in challenging the dismissal order after eleven years, the Division Bench saw no merit in the writ appeal and dismissed it. ¶23

M.G.Ubayadullah Vs the Chairman — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

W.A.No. 155 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 06.02.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN

¶7

W.A.No. 155 of 2025

M.G.Ubayadullah

...Appellant

Vs.

1.The Chairman, Chennai Port Trust,

¶12

Rajaji Salai, Chennai - 600 001.

¶13

2.The Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer, (Disciplinary Authority)

¶14

Administrative Office, Chennai Port Trust, Rajaji Salai, Chennai - 600 001. ...Respondents

¶15

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 27.08.2024 made in W.P.No.1094 of 2020.

¶16

For Appellant : Mr.Thenmozhi R.

¶17

J U D G M E N T

¶18

(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)

¶19

The appellant has been non-suited on the ground of delay. Challenge

¶20

was to the order of punishment of dismissal from service passed on 1/4

¶21

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

¶22

W.A.No. 155 of 2025 04.10.2008. The petitioner mounted the challenge only in the year 2019 i.e., after 11 years, after the order of dismissal from service.

¶23

From the facts narrated by the writ court, we find that the petitioner is a habitual offender. He was also absent from duty between 23.09.1990 to 26.08.1993, almost for three years. Though he was discharged from service on 25.02.1993, he was taken back, taking a lenient view. Even thereafter, the petitioner was absent for 279 days in the year 2004 and 164 days in the year 2005. The Writ Court has found that the petitioner has not given any justifiable reason to explain the laches on his part. Hence, we see no merit in the appeal. This Writ Appeal therefore, fails and it is accordingly, dismissed . No costs.

¶24

(R.S.M., J.) (G.A.M., J.) 06.02.2025

¶25

kkn

¶26

Index: No Speaking order Neutral Citation : No

¶27

2/4

¶28

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

¶29

W.A.No. 155 of 2025

¶30

To:

¶31

1.The Chairman, Chennai Port Trust, Rajaji Salai, Chennai - 600 001.

¶32

2.The Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer, (Disciplinary Authority) Administrative Office, Chennai Port Trust, Rajaji Salai, Chennai - 600 001.

¶33

3/4

¶34

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

¶35

W.A.No. 155 of 2025

¶36

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. and G. ARUL MURUGAN, J.

¶37

KKN

¶38

W.A.No. 155 of 2025