REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

M.RAMANATHAN Appellant

V/S

The Secretary To Government,Chennai Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. BANI SINGH AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
THE COMMISSIONER,SANKARAPURAM PANCHAYAT UNION,ETC. VS. S.A.ABDUL WAHAB AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
MADHYA PRADESH INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. MOHAN LAL KAPOOR:K N MISRA [REFERRED TO]
SIEMENS ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING CO OF INDIA LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
S N MUKHERJEE VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
S N MUKHERJEE VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. CHAMAN LAL GOYAL [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. N RADHAKISHAN [REFERRED TO]
P V MAHADEVAN VS. M D TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD [REFERRED TO]
M V BIJLANI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
DIVL FOREST OFFICER KOTHAGUDEM VS. MADHUSUDHAN RAO [REFERRED TO]
DIRECTOR HORTICULTURE PUNJAB VS. JAGJIVAN PARSHAD [REFERRED TO]
CHAIRMAN D A RANI LAKSHMI BAI K G BANK VS. JAGDISH SHARAN VARSHNEY [REFERRED TO]
EAST COAST RAILWAY VS. MAHADEV APPA RAO [REFERRED TO]
M BALAKRISHNAN VS. CORPORATION OF MADURAI [REFERRED TO]
B LOGANATHAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL MADRAS BENCH [REFERRED TO]
G ANAND VS. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER AND COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE ADMINISTRATION [REFERRED TO]
K KUMARAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
KOOTHA PILLAI VS. COMMISSIONER MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION [REFERRED TO]
S SEKHAR VS. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL WELFARE EZHILAGAM [REFERRED TO]
RANJEET SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed, challenging the order passed by the first respondent, vide G.O.(1 -D) No.310, Environment and Forest Department, dated 16.10.2009, wherein the punishment inflicted on the petitioner has been confirmed, dismissing the revision petition filed against the order passed by the appellate authority, dated 20.08.2008.

(2.) The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this Writ Petition follows as under:

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner raised three major grounds. Since the charge memo was issued on 05.10.2007, nearly after a period of ten years from the date of occurrence, according to the petitioner, the inordinate delay which was unexplained, has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. Secondly, the petitioner continued in the same range only for a period of 6+ months. Though the petitioner gave details and progress of the investigation, till he was transferred from the station, to his successor one Mr.Sheik Umar, who continued in the same range for a period of two years, the said Sheik Umar was allowed to scot -free and no charge memo was issued or disciplinary proceedings taken against the said Sheik Umar. Hence, there is a discrimination and the order of the first respondent confirming the punishment against the petitioner is, therefore, liable to be quashed. Thirdly, the first respondent and the second respondent failed to give any reason in their respective orders, despite the fact that the petitioner has raised various grounds attacking the order of punishment with reference to admitted facts. The petitioner also challenges the order of the third respondent, as one without jurisdiction and hence, pleaded for quashing of the impugned order.

Click here to view full judgment.

M.RAMANATHAN Vs. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,CHENNAI

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address