Back
V. PARTHIBAN
M. Raja – Appellant
Versus
Principal Secretary to Government, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection (CL1) Department, Chennai – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 4th respondent viz., Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Krishnagiri in its Charge memo Na.Ka.No.1575/2015/Pa.Tho dated 25.08.2018 and the further order of the 1st respondent in its G.O(Ms.)No.71 dated 05.07.2019 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies for the panel year 2018-19 (crucial dated 1.10.2017)
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 1st respondent in G.O.(D).24 Cooperation Food and Consumer Protection (CD1) Department dated 03.02.2020 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to pass an order of promotion by including the petitioner’s name in the panel for the post of Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies for the year 2018-2019 as on 01.10.2017.)
Common Order
1. The prayer in W.P.No.22644 of 2019 is to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records o
The court emphasized the importance of ensuring fair and legal disciplinary proceedings and held that disciplinary actions must be based on valid grounds and not be initiated for collateral purposes.
The main legal point established is that 'Censure' punishment does not warrant the imposition of check periods for promotion, and surcharge proceedings should not automatically disqualify an individu....
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 issuance of a charge memo after significant delay and without adherence to natural justice principles constitutes an abuse of process, warranting quashing of the proceedings.
The court ruled that a second charge memo, being a replica of a previously quashed memo, was invalid, emphasizing the principle of non-duplication of disciplinary charges.
Delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings and issuing charge memos can vitiate the proceedings and warrant their quashing, especially when the delay is unjustifiable and prejudicial to the employe....
Inordinate delay in concluding departmental proceedings can be fatal to the action initiated by the respondents and can prejudice the petitioner, leading to the quashing of the impugned order and gra....
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
