SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(Mad) 1103

A.KULASEKARAN
L. Savariraj – Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner & Another – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:For the Petitioner:K. Rajkumar, Advocate. For the Respondents:P. Srinivas, Advocate.

Judgment :-

(Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.)

This writ petition is listed today for admission and I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Corporation.

2. The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner, K. Abisekhapuram Division, Tiruchirapalli, the second respondent herein made in Na.Ka.No.C3/6220/2002 (Maiyam) in Na.Da.La.dated 30-05-2005 quash the same and direct the respondents herein to permit the petitioner to continue as watchman in the existing post with all his service and monetary benefits.

3. The petitioner was appointed as watchman in the first respondent Corporation. For certain alleged irregularities, the first respondent has issued a charge memo and on receipt of the same the petitioner has submitted a representation to the first respondent seeking to furnish the documents relied on him. The first respondent has also appointed the second respondent as enquiry officer, who conducted enquiry by examining so





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top