T. CHANDRASEKARAN Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) T . Chandrasekaran, the deceased first petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the order of dismissal passed by the first respondent dismissing the original writ petitioner from service as Village Administrative Officer and also the order of the second respondent dated 23.08.2006 made in Na.Ka.H1/23484/06 dismissing the appeal preferred by the original writ petitioner against the above said order of dismissal dated 21.06.1999 passed by the first respondent and prayed that the said orders be quashed and the respondents be directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential service and monetary benefits by issuing a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus.

(2.) DURING the pendency of the writ petition, the original writ petitioner Chandrasekaran died and his wife and children have come on record as petitioners 2 to 5 to pursue the writ petition. T.Chandrasekaran (the original writ petitioner) faced an enquiry and charges of misappropriation and in the disciplinary proceedings, he was found guilty. But the Disciplinary authority, namely the first respondent, passed an order imposing a penalty of stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect. As against the said order imposing the penalty, the original writ petitioner Chandrasekaran did not file any appeal. But the Appellate Authority, namely the second respondent, who got suo motu power of revision, initiated suo motu revisional proceedings, set aside the order of the first respondent and remitted the matter back to the first respondent to conduct fresh enquiry and pass orders. After such remand, the first respondent conducted a fresh enquiry and passed the first impugned order in his proceedings in pa.Mu. A1/2755/97 dated 21/06/1999 dismissing Chandrasekaran from service. The said order was challenged before the second respondent in an appeal. The appeal was dismissed by the second respondent by the second impugned order in proceedings No.Na.Ka.H1/23484/2006 dated 23.08.2006 . Thereafter, the original writ petitioner came forward with the present writ petition for quashing the impugned orders of both the first and second respondents and for a direction to reinstate him into service with all service and monetary benefits by issuing a writ of certiorarified mandamus.

(3.) LEARNED Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that since the earlier order of the second respondent dated 21.06.1998 in the suo motu revision was not challenged by filing a review, the deceased first petitioner was not entitled to challenge the consequential order passed by the first respondent in the fresh enquiry conducted pursuant to the order of remand passed by the second respondent.