IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated :20.08.2018

Coram

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Satrughana Pujahari

Writ Petition No.21230 of 2018

and

W.M.P.No.24902 of 2018

P. V. Ravichandran

...Petitioner

Vs.

The Commissioner of Municipal Administration,

Chepauk, Chennai - 5.

...Respondent

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for records

of the respondent in ROC No.9785/2008/V2-1, dated 04.07.2018 and

to quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Raja for M/s.N.Kolandaivelu

For Respondent : Mr.S.Suresh Kumar

Government Advocate

O R D E R

Heard, Mr.K.Raja, the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and Mr.S.Suresh Kumar, the learned Government

Advocate, who accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. With

the consent of the learned counsel on either side, the Writ

Petition is taken up for disposal.

2.

The grievance of the petitioner, in this Writ Petition

is that, he had challenged the issuance of chargememo in a

disciplinary proceedings earlier before this Court in

W.P.No.14522 of 2008, which was allowed giving liberty to the

respondent to proceed afresh with an observation to conclude the

proceeding as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within six

months, if initiated. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority

has not proceed forthwith by initiation of disciplinary

proceeding, but after a period of three years proceeded with

against the petitioner by issuance of the present chargememo.

Hence, he has come to this Court seeking a writ of certiorari to

quash the same, as it is contrary to the aforesaid order of this

Court.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,

during the course of hearing, drawn the notice of this Court to

a decision of this Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu rep

by its Secretary, Chennai Vs. T.Ranganathan, reported in [(2010)

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3 MLJ 625], wherein, the ratio decidendi laid down is as

follows:-

" Once a competent Court fixes an outer

time limit to complete the enquiry and pass

final orders, the parties to the proceedings

are bound to strictly adhere to the time

granted to comply with the said order. The

party to the proceedings can approach the

very same Court seeking extension of time

stating sufficient reasons and once valid

reasons

are

given,

normally,

the

Court/Tribunal would extend the time

depending upon the facts and circumstances of

the case "

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore,

submits that since the earlier order of this Court passed in

W.P.No.14522 of 2008, dated 26.08.2014, has not been complied

with, which has fixed an outer time limit of six months for

conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings and no extention was

sought for thereafter, initiation of the disciplinary

proceedings after the fixed outer limit amounts to overreach the

order passed by this Court, and accordingly, notice be issued

seeking a reply affidavit and till such time, the impugned order

be stayed.

5.

After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the

parties and going through the materials on record, especially,

the fact that this Court in the earlier round of litigation, i.e

in W.P.No.14522 of 2008, while quashing the charge memo had not

in any manner passed an order restraining the respondents from

proceeding against the petitioner, but only given a direction

that since the charges being serious in nature, if the Authority

decides to proceed with to initiate disciplinary proceedings

afresh to complete the same as expeditiously as possible,

preferably, within a period of six months and the period of six

months has not expired, I am of the view that the petitioner has

no case seeking indulgence of this Court, to quash the

chargememo on the ground stated. As such, the pet