SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 21011

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.N.MANJULA
Vinayagamani S – Appellant
Versus
The District Collector – Respondent


ORDER

Heard Mr.K.Mahendran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.J.Ashok, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3. Since no adverse order is going to be issued against the 4th respondent, notice to the 4th respondent is dispensed with.

2. The petitioner has filed the writ petition challenging the impugned order of the 2nd respondent dated 01.09.2023 and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to take suitable disciplinary action against the 4th respondent for the violation of Rule 7 of The Tamilnadu Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1973 within the time limit that may be stipulated by this Court.

3. The facts in nutshell that lead to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:

The 4th respondent, who is working as Village Administrative Officer, purchased 7 cents of lands on 28.06.2023 from one Syed Ibrahim. However, the said purchase of land is without obtaining necessary permission. Patta was also changed in the name of the 4th respondent subsequently. While so, for the agricultural land, the 4th respondent is said to have obtained building permission and built a commercial complex. Since the act of the 4th respondent in purchasin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top