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

2009 Supreme(Mad) 4261

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN
T. Duraimanickam – Appellant
Versus
Superintendent of Police – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mrs. Nirmala Daisy, Advocate.
For the Respondent:P. Muthukumar, Government Advocate.

Judgment :-

The Original Application in O.A.No.1362 of 2002 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") is the present writ petition.

2. Heard Mrs.Nirmala Daisy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Muthukumar, learned Government Advocate for the respondent.

3. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant on compassionate ground on 17.02.1995. While so, a charge memo dated 17.09.2001 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules was issued against him. The allegations made in the charge sheet are as follows:

"1) jpU.jp.Jiukhzpf;fk; ,sepiy cjtpahsh; 6. 2001 Kjy;; 6. 2001 tiu vt;tpj Kd; mDkjpnah tpLg;ngh ,d;wp gzpf;F tuhky; ,Ue;J tpl;L 6. 2001 md;W 6. 2001 Kjy; 6. 2001 tiu 10 ehl;fSf;F kUj;Jtr; rhd;Wg;bgw;W jhkjkhf mDg;gpa bray; kpft[k; xG;fPdkhdJk; kw;Wk; fz;of;fj;jf;f bray;.

2) 16. 2001 Kjy; bjhlh;e;J Mg;brz;oy; ,Ue;j braYf;F gzpf;F cld; mwpf;if bra;a mDg;gg;gl;l Fwpg;ghizia 26. 2001 md;W bgw;Wf;bfhz;l gpd;dUk; bjhlh;e;J vt;tpj jftnyh Kd; mDkjpnah ,d;wp Mg;brz;oy; ,Ug;gJ kpft[k; xG;fPdkhd bray;. "

4. An enquiry was conducted. Based on the enquiry report, the petitioner was dismissed from ser












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