Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
VINOD K. SHARMA
R. Venkatachalam
Versus
The Joint Registrar of Co-op. Societies & Another
W.P(MD)No.1147 of 2006 & W.P.M.P.No.1274 of 2006
Decided on : 08-07-2011
Suspension - Order of Dismissal - The court found that the order of suspension stood merged in the order of dismissal, rendering the writ petition infructuous and dismissing it accordingly.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order of suspension through a writ petition, but during the pendency of the petition, the petitioner was found guilty in an enquiry and dismissed from service.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order of suspension had merged in the order of dismissal, rendering the writ petition infructuous and dismissing it. The petitioner was given the option to challenge the order of dismissal in accordance with the law.
Issues: Challenge to order of suspension, conclusion of enquiry during pendency of writ petition, merger of suspension in dismissal order, infructuous nature of the writ petition
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the fact that the enquiry against the petitioner had concluded with a dismissal order, making the challenge to the suspension order irrelevant.
Final Decision: The writ petition challenging the order of suspension was dismissed as infructuous, with the petitioner given the option to challenge the order of dismissal in accordance with the law.
1. The Petitioner has challenged the order of suspension, by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
2. During pendency of the writ petition, the enquiry against the petitioner stands concluded, wherein the petitioner was held guilty and an order of dismissal was passed.
3. Paragraph No.11 of the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent reads as under:
"It is submitted that the charges were framed against the petitioner on 28.02.2005. The petitioner has been given his written explanation on 10.03.2005. The domestic enquiry was ordered. In the domestic enquiry report, the charges framed against the petitioner was proved. Hence, the first respondent has passed the final order on 28.08.2006 and hence the petitioner has been dismissed from service".
4. The order of suspension therefore stands merged in the order of dismissal.
5. Consequently, this writ petition is rendered infructuous, and accordingly is dismissed as such.
6. However it is open to the petitioner to challenge that order of dismissal in accordance with law, if so advised. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
