Back
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
G. Dhanalakshmi – Appellant
Versus
District Collector, Dindigul – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for entire records relating to the impugned proceedings of the respondent herein vide R.O.C.No. 6914/2020/RD.4, dated 16.11.2020 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith.)
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned charge memo issued by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.6914/2020/R.D.4, dated 21.12.2020 and quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction.)
Commonorder
1. Since the issue involved in both cases are interlinked, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. W.P.(MD) No.9045 of 2021 has been filed challenging the suspension order, dated 16.11.2020 and W.P.(MD) No.9045 of 2021 has been filed challenging the charge memo, dated 21.12.2020, issued by the District Collector, Dindigul.
3. The petitioner was working as Panchayat Union Overseer and the impugned charge memo is challenged mainly on t
Competent disciplinary authority expected to conclude proceedings expeditiously; petitioner's cooperation essential for entitlement to relief.
The withdrawal of a charge memo does not necessarily nullify the proceedings, and pendency of disciplinary proceedings can be a valid reason for denying promotion.
The specificity required in charge inquiries against public servants is critical to uphold due process.
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
