Back
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
J. Ravichandran – Appellant
Versus
Director, Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services, Chennai – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to impugned proceedings dated 02.02.2015 in Na.Ka.No.71098-L1/2014 of the first respondent and to quash the same.)
1. The charge memo dated 02.02.2015 issued against the writ petitioner under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules is under challenge in the present writ petition.
2. The petitioner was working as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon and on account of certain allegations, the writ petitioner was placed under suspension and disciplinary proceedings were initiated. The writ petitioner filed two writ petitions, one challenging the order of suspension and another challenging the charge memorandum. During the pendency of these writ petitions, the order of suspension was revoked and he was reinstated into service and therefore, the writ petition filed, challenging the order of suspension in W.P.No.4204 of 2015 was closed by this Court.
3. With reference to the present writ petition, the charges against the writ petitioner is that he has included certain ineligible persons to avail the Government benefits
Competent disciplinary authority expected to conclude proceedings expeditiously; petitioner's cooperation essential for entitlement to relief.
Mere acquittal in a criminal case does not bar departmental disciplinary proceedings, and delay in disciplinary proceedings cannot be solely attributed to the respondents if it is due to the petition....
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.
Inordinate delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings can cause prejudice to the accused and may lead to the quashing of charges. G.O.338 prohibits the continuation of disciplinary proceedings agai....
The disciplinary authority has the discretion to assess the evidence and form an opinion on the nature of the allegations, and relief sought based on assumptions regarding the framing of charges cann....
Issuing a second charge memo while a criminal case is pending violates principles of natural justice and is impermissible.
The power of judicial review under Article 226 is limited to ensuring the processes are in line with the Statutes and Rules, not to adjudicate factual disputes in departmental disciplinary proceeding....
The limited scope of Judicial Review in interfering with the quantum of punishment imposed by the Competent Authority.
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
