Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
A.Devaraj – Appellant
Versus
The Secretary to Government – Respondent
W.P.(MD)No.21414 of 2017 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.17704 & 17705 of 2017
Decided on : 21-08-2024
Writ Petition - Quashing of Order - The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the order allowing the ninth respondent to retire from service, as the disciplinary enquiry found the respondent not guilty of the charges, rendering the petition moot.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash G.O(1D)No.489, which allowed the ninth respondent to retire from service. The petitioner contested the validity of this order based on disciplinary charges against the ninth respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that since the disciplinary enquiry concluded with a finding of not guilty for the ninth respondent, there was no basis for further adjudication of the writ petition.
Issues: Whether the order allowing the ninth respondent to retire from service should be quashed based on the disciplinary charges against him.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the outcome of the disciplinary enquiry, which found the ninth respondent not guilty, negated the grounds for challenging the retirement order.
Result: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
ORDER :
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of G.O(1D)No.489 Revenue and Disastrous Management Department, Land Survey and Land Tax Scheme Unit L.S-3(1) Section, dated 31.10.2017 by the first respondent, quash the same.
When this Writ Petition is taken up for hearing, it is represented by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that subsequent to the filing of this writ petition, in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the ninth respondent, enquiry was conducted and in the enquiry, it was found that ninth respondent is not guilty of the charge framed against him and therefore, nothing survives for further adjudication in this writ petition.
2. The petitioner has challenged the order allowing the ninth respondent from retiring from service. Since in the enquiry proceedings the ninth respondent has been found not guilty of the charge framed against him, nothing survives for further adjudication in this writ petition.
3. Recording the aforementioned facts, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
A writ petition challenging an administrative order becomes moot when the underlying disciplinary proceedings result in a finding of not guilty.
The court has the discretion to dispose of a writ petition as infructuous based on the submissions made by the petitioner's counsel.
A writ petition under Article 226 becomes infructuous when the relief sought is no longer relevant or necessary.
Disciplinary actions must adhere to principles of proportionality and due process, ensuring fair treatment of employees in similar circumstances.
Legal proceedings must address current and relevant issues; if an issue becomes moot, the court will dismiss the case.
A writ petition becomes infructuous when the relief sought is no longer relevant or actionable.
A petitioner has the right to withdraw a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, leading to its dismissal without costs.
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
