Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1990)ILLJ205Mad
Mohan, J. 1. The petitioner is a direct recruit to the post of Deputy Collector-Category II, in the year 1978. He successfully completed his probation on 1st January 1981. He was promoted as District Revenue Officer-Category I of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service. He was posted as Joint Director of Stationery and Printing on 26th August 1986. He was sent on deputation to the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation and posted as Senior Regional Manager at Madras on 27th February, 1987. By proceedings dated 6th February, 1988, he was posted as District Revenue Officer at Chengalpattu. He joined the same on 8th February, 1988. On 12th March, 1988, Mr. Sameer Vyas was posted as Collector of Chengalpattu at Kancheepuram. 2. According to the petitioner, the said Collector, not being well acquainted with Tamil, seems to have misunderstood the petitioner which led to some misunderstanding. While the matter stood thus, to the surprise and shock of the petitioner, by G.O.Ms. No. 534, Public (Special-A)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1967Mad281
(1) These appeals are directed against the order of Srinivasan J. in W.P. 123 and 124 of 1961 in which the prayers were for the issue of a writ of certiorari and consequent writ of mandamus respectively. The prior facts required for a consideration of these two appeals are briefly the following:The appellant Mrs. Nesamoney Daniel was employed as a teacher in the Government aided Primary School, Pannimade estate, Annamalais. Under the rules issued by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, the appellant in her capacity as a teacher of a primary school, was obliged to take an insurance policy on her life. As instructed by the Life Insurance Corporation, she presented herself for medical examination, to one Dr. K.V. Mathai, M.B.B.S. the third respondent in the two writ petitions, who was at that time employed by the estate, in which the teacher was also employed. Sometime later, she received a communication from the Life Insurance Corporation stating that the report of the third respondent show...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1937Mad735; 173Ind.Cas.251; (1937)2MLJ189
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, C.J.1. This appeal is from an order passed by Gentle, J., on two applications under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act praying for an order restraining the Collector of Salt Revenue, Madras, by a writ of prohibition from conducting or holding or proceeding with an enquiry into the conduct of the two applicants. The appellant was the applicant in No. 349 of 1937. The order passed by Gentle, J., covered the contentions of both of the applicants which were identical. An interim injunction had been granted on the 8th February. Gentle, J., by his order dissolved that injunction, discharged the rule nisi and dismissed the applications.2. The appellant is an Assistant Commissioner of Salt and Customs, Central Division, Madras, to which office he was appointed on the 16th March, 1936, before which date he was Inspector of Salt and Customs, Negapatam. Certain charges had been made against the appellant and an enquiry under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classific...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
S. Manikumar, J. 1. The petitioner belongs to Indian Postal Service. Placing reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. B.V.Gopinath reported in 2014 (1) SCC 351, Mr.R.Malaichamy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as initiation of disciplinary proceedings and issuance of Charge Memorandum No.11-02/2011-Vig.(P.11), dated 16.07.2013, were not approved by the Hon'ble Minister, a mandatory requirement under Rule 14(2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, the Tribunal ought to have granted the reliefs, sought for in the Original Application. He raised further grounds that the petitioner was not supplied with additional documents; though the names of certain witnesses were mentioned in the charge memo, they were not examined; the inquiry officer, hastily short-circuited the procedure; and his report has not been authenticated by the competent authority, as per the CCS (CCA) Rules. 2. The Assistant Direct...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1991)2MLJ424
Mishra, J.1. The petitioner, who was an Assistant Executive Engineer, in the Public Works Department, filed W.P. No. 569 of 1984 in this Court, questioning the validity of the order of the first respondent-State Government dismissing him from service. A charge memo had been issued to him on 10.5.1979 calling upon him to show cause, followed by an inquiry by the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Coimbatore Division, who submitted his report on 7.11.1979. On receipt of this report, the State Government found certain defects in the proceedings and ordered accordingly for a fresh inquiry. The inquiry this time was entrusted to the personal Assistant to Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Coimbatore Nilgiris Circle, who submitted his report on 6.3.1980. Acting upon the said report, the first respondent came to the provisional conclusion that the petitioner should be dismissed from service. Accordingly, a second show cause notice calling upon him to offer his explana...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
O R D E R1. The petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned part of the Government Order No.SS.II/211-40/2008 Public (SC) Department dated 09.09.2008, accepting the recommendation (b) (i) & (ii) of the Commission of Inquiry with a consequential prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of prohibition, forbearing the respondent / State from commencing / continuing any departmental or criminal action against the petitioner in pursuance to the said recommendations. The recommendation (b) (i) & (ii) reads as under: "(b) Thiru A.Shankar, Special Assistant, DVAC:-(i) Criminal case may be registered and proceeded with under Section 5 of the Office Secret Act, Section 43 and 66 of the Information Technology Act, Sections 378, 463, 470 and 505 of India Penal Code investigated and proceeded against Thiru A.Shankar. (ii) To initiate departmental proceedings for misconduct and endangering the security and confident...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1959Mad294; 1959CriLJ856
1. There are two connected Writ Petitions arising in connection with the death of one Arumugham in Police custody and filed by two Sub-Inspectors Natarajan and Rajangam and four Constables P. C. Nos. 113, 1331, 2118 and 2119 and from the alleged torture in Police custody of one Jayaraman filed by Sub-Inspector Rajangam and the aforesaid four Police constables.2. The facts leading to the institution of these Writ petitions are as follows: Sub-Inspector Natarajan at the material time was the Law and Order Sub-Inspector attached to J-3 Police Station. Sub-Inspector Rajangam was the Detective Sub-Inspector of Police, attached to the same Station. The four Police Constables were attached to the Crime Section of J-3 Station.The deceased Arumugliam aged about 23 was living at No. 51, Chinnaraju Pillai Thottam, Kodam-bakkam, within the limits of the J-3 Police Station, With his mother Challammal, his mother's paramour Vedachalam, that Vedachalam's wife Kamala and her four children. He was also...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1934Mad516
Beasley, C.J.1. These two appeals can be dealt with together. Although the facts are different, the main point for decision is common to both. The facts in each appeal may be briefly Stated. In O.S. No. 1 of 1931 the appellant brought a suit against the Secretary of State for India in Council, the respondent in this appeal. In that suit he asked for a declaration that he was wrongly dismissed, after he has been discharged on an invalid pension and for damages amounting to Rs. 9,900. His case was that he was discharged in October 1927 on an invalid pension and whilst a pension it was dismissed on February 1928 on the ground that he had been found guilty of misconduct before his retirement. The result of this was that his pension was withdrawn. His case was and is that under Rule 351 of the Civil Service Rules a pension can be withdrawn only if the pensioner bas been guilty of misconduct subsequent to his retirement. He next contends that his dismissal was contrary to the provision in Su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
1. What is sought for in this Writ Petition is a mandamus, forbearing respondents 4 and 5 from conducting any enquiry against the petitioner based upon the decision said to have been taken on 28.08.2009 by respondents 1 to 3.2. According to the petitioner, he was selected by the Union Public Service Commission for appointment as an IPS Officer and was allotted to Tamil Nadu Cadre; he is holding the position of Inspector General of Police; during February,2009, he was working as Additional Commissioner of Police, (Law and Order), Chennai City; on the orders of Mr.Radhakrishnan, the then Commissioner of Police, he came to High Court on the forenoon of 19.02.2009 to oversee the security arrangements in the High Court apropos the appearance of Dr.Subramaniam Swamy before the High Court; at about 14.45 hrs., the then Commissioner of Police called him over phone and directed him to go to B2 Esplanade Police Station and monitor the surrender of advocates connected in Crime No.13/09 on the fil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2002)2MLJ15
ORDERK. Sampath, J.1. The prayer in the main writ petition is for certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the second respondent in Charge No. 15 of 2001, dated 30.8.2001 and quash the same.2. The prayer in the writ miscellaneous petition, W.M.P. No. 28223 of 2001, is to stay all further proceedings in charge No. 15/2001, dated 30.8.2001 of the second respondent, pending disposal of the main writ petition. In this writ miscellaneous petition, on 12.10.2001, D. Murugesan, J. on being prima facie satisfied, following the decisions of the Supreme Court in Kusheshwar Dubey v. Bharat Coking Coal Limited and State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena , wherein it has been held, 'that where criminal as well as disciplinary actions were grounded on the same facts, the stay of disciplinary action would be justified', granted stay of further proceedings in charge No. 15 of 2001, dated 30.8.2001, of the second respondent pending further orders.3. W.M.P. No. 32054 of 2001 has been f...
Tag this Judgment!