REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

IRUDAYARAJ Appellant

V/S

SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, (TAPCO) DEPARTMENT, CHENNAI Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

GHANSHAMDAS SRIVASTAVA V STATE OF M.P. [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH V BANI SINGH & ANR. [REFERRED TO]
M.ELANGOVAN V THE TRICHY DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. [REFERRED TO]
JAGDAMBA PRASAD SHUKLA V STATE OF U.P. [REFERRED TO]
KHEM CHAND VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
GHANSHAMDAS SRIVASTAVA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF BOMBAY VS. DILIPKUMAR RAGHAVENDRANATH NADKARNI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VITHOBA BABAN VS. GHANDRABHAN TALE:STATE OF MAHARASHTRA:STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
FAKIRBHAI FULABHAI SOLANKI VS. PRESIDING OFFICER [REFERRED TO]
O P GUPTA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. N RADHAKISHAN [REFERRED TO]
M PAUL ANTHONY VS. BHARAT GOLD MINES LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
HIRAN MAYEE BHATTACHARYYA V SECRETARY,S.M.SCHOOL FOR GIRLS [REFERRED TO]
ANWARUN NISHA KHATOON VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
P V MAHADEVAN VS. M D TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD [REFERRED TO]
M V BIJLANI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
M NATANAM VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS AND FIT PERSON ARULMIGHU THILLAI KALLAMMAN THIRUKOVIL CHIDAMBARAM [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL MADRAS BENCH [REFERRED TO]
SPECIAL COMMISSIONER AND COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES CHENNAI VS. N SIVASAMY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER CHANNAI [REFERRED TO]
PARAMESWARAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
R TIRUPATHY VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR MADURAI DISTRICT COLLECTORATE [REFERRED TO]
DIRECTOR OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT VS. A PERIYANAYAGAM [REFERRED TO]
S RATHINAVELU VS. CHAIRMAN TAMIL NADU WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD [REFERRED TO]
M RAJAGOPAL VS. PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ASSAILING the correctness of the order of dismissal, Mr.S.Selvathirumurugan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the alleged disqualification pertains to the year 1990 and there is an inordinate delay of 18 years in framing the issues. Initiation of disciplinary proceedings is actuated with a mala fide intention and in order to defeat the petitioner's genuine claim of seniority and deployment. In this context, he relied on decisions of this Court in P.V.Mahadevan v. M.D.Tamil Nadu Housing Board reported in 2005 (4) CTC 403 and S.Rathinavelu v. T.N.Water Supply and Drainage Board reported in 2009 (2) CTC 513.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even if the delinquent is suspended pending enquiry, he is entitled to subsistence grant, but the petitioner was denied salary for the month of December' 2009. Therefore, the petitioner was deprived of a reasonable opportunity to effectively defend the charges. In support of the above contentions, he placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in Ghanshamdas Srivastava v. State of M.P., reported in 1971 (3) SCC 802, Ghanshamdas Srivastava v. State of M.P., reported in 1973 (1) SCC 653, State of Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan Tale reported in 1983 (3) SCC 387 and Jagdamba Prasad Shukla v. State of U.P., reported in2000 (7) SCC 70.

(3.) " Refutting the above contentions, the respondents have filed detailed counter affidavits and made submissions, which are dealt with in the latter paragraphs of this order. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

Click here to view full judgment.

IRUDAYARAJ Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT TAPCO DEPARTMENT CHENNAI

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address