M. Vairaperumal Vs. the Senior Engineer / Administration / Medical and anr.

M. Vairaperumal vs The Senior Engineer / Administration / Medical and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jul 05, 2011

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/919738

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/919738
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: Vinod K. Sharma, J.
Decided On: Jul 05, 2011
Case Number: Writ Petition(MD)No.509 of 2006
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

M. Vairaperumal

Advocate Mr. R. Sundar, Adv.

Respondent

The Senior Engineer / Administration / Medical and anr.

Advocate Mr. C. Muthusaravanan, Adv.

Excerpt

1. the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 06.01.2006 passed by the appellate authority, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of punishment. 2. the only ground on which the impugned order has been challenged in the writ petition is that the appellate authority dismissed the appeal, without giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. 3. standing order 66 of the bharat heavy electricals limited reads as under:- 66. appeals: an employee on whom any of the punishments mentioned in standing order no.61 is imposed shall have the right of appeal to the authority next above the punishing authority, whose decision shall be final. no further appeal shall lie to any other authority . 4. it is well settled law, that merely because a personal hearing is not given, the order in the appeal cannot be held to be bad, unless there is a specific provision for personal hearing in the appeal. a reading of the provision, shows that there is no such obligation on the part of the appellate authority, to give a personal hearing to the appellant. 5. thus, there is no merit in the contention, in view of the law laid down by the hon'ble supreme court in the case of state bank of patiala ..vs.. mahendra kumar singhal(1994 supp (2) s.c.c. 463). 6. even otherwise, the petitioner has the alternative statutory remedy of review under standing order 67, which reads as under:- 67. review of cases after appeal : an authority higher than the appellate authority may review a case after appeal at any time either on its own motion or on the application of the employee concerned . 7. when the matter was taken up for hearing on 24.10.2008, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner and the case was ordered to be posted under the caption for dismissal after two weeks. 8. in spite of the order, the case was listed only on 04.06.2011 and at request, the case was ordered to be posted on.....

Full Judgment

1. The petitioner has prayed for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 06.01.2006 passed by the Appellate Authority, dismissing the Appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of punishment.

2. The only ground on which the impugned order has been challenged in the writ petition is that the Appellate Authority dismissed the Appeal, without giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.

3. Standing Order 66 of the Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited reads as under:-

66. Appeals: An employee on whom any of the punishments mentioned in Standing Order No.61 is imposed shall have the right of appeal to the authority next above the punishing authority, whose decision shall be final. No further appeal shall lie to any other authority .

4. It is well settled law, that merely because a personal hearing is not given, the order in the Appeal cannot be held to be bad, unless there is a specific provision for personal hearing in the appeal. A reading of the provision, shows that there is no such obligation on the part of the Appellate Authority, to give a personal hearing to the appellant.

5. Thus, there is no merit in the contention, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE BANK OF PATIALA ..VS.. MAHENDRA KUMAR SINGHAL(1994 SUPP (2) S.C.C. 463).

6. Even otherwise, the petitioner has the alternative statutory remedy of Review under Standing Order 67, which reads as under:- 67. Review of cases after Appeal : An authority higher than the Appellate Authority may review a case after appeal at any time either on its own motion or on the application of the employee concerned .

7. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 24.10.2008, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner and the case was ordered to be posted under the caption For Dismissal after two weeks.

8. In spite of the order, the case was listed only on 04.06.2011 and at request, the case was ordered to be posted on 05.07.2011.

9. Today, again, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.

10. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed for non- prosecution.

No costs.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2011 Same Parties M. Vairaperumal vs The Senior Engineer / Administration / Med... Same Subject Education Same Judge Vinod K. Sharma, J.