Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.SENTHILKUMAR
A. Ramakrishnan, S/o. Alwar Iyengar – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Administration Department – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's arguments on jurisdiction and explanations. (Para 4 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. respondents' defense on proof and rule 14 authority. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. court's findings on enquiry non-participation and dismissal. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 17 , 18) |
ORDER :
N. Senthilkumar, J.
The Writ Petition has been filed to call for the records in R.P.No.128/2014 D2 dated 31.07.2015 on the file of the first Respondent viz, Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Dept., Chennai-34 and to quash the same.
2.1.The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Junior Assistant in 1978 and served as Accountant in Arulmighu Nainar Kulasekara Vinayagar Thirukoil, Aralvaimozhi. After Mr.Ramasubbu became Executive Officer in 1998, the petitioner was harassed. From the year of 2000 onwards, the petitioner was not assigned any work, however, the Executive Officer issued a letter dated 05.10.2000 alleging that the lease amount of Rs.15,000/- paid by the lessees has not been accounted in the temple accounts. For the said allegation, the petitioner replied on 09.10.2000 stating that he had neither collected nor received the said amount. Thereafter, the Executive Officer is
Executive Officer empowered under HR&CE Act Rule 14 to implement disciplinary actions; failure to prove enquiry participation upholds dismissal.
The court upheld the authority of the Administrative Committee in temple management and affirmed the validity of ongoing disciplinary proceedings against the appellant.
Termination without adequate evidence and disregard for fair procedures violates principles of natural justice.
suspension must be a step in aid to the ultimate result of the investigation or inquiry. The authority also should keep in mind public interest of the impact of the delinquent’s continuance in office....
Disciplinary proceedings are vitiated when charge memos are vague and lack specific statements of allegations. Administrative authorities must not engage in selective, discriminatory penalization of ....
: Service – Punishment - once the charges levelled against the delinquent employee are proved then it is for the appointing authority to decide as to what punishment should be imposed on the delinque....
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to rules of natural justice while allowing for reasonable discretion by authorities, particularly regarding witness testimony; dismissal upheld for proven misappr....
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to specified regulations; lack of defined misconduct requires clarity for fairness.
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
