Dr.K.Sundaramoorthy v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated: 12.07.2016

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN Writ Petition No.20584 of 2016 and W.M.P.Nos.17692 and 17693 of 2016 Dr.K.Sundaramoorthy ...

Petitioner Vs.

1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary, Higher Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai- 9.

2. The Director of Technical Education, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.

... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the first respondent's order made in G.O.(2D) No.41, dated 26.5.2016, followed by a consequential order in G.O.(2D) No.43 dated 31.5.2016, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith settle all retiral benefits.

For Petitioner ..

Mr.L.Chandrakumar For Respondents ..

Mr.K.Rajendra Prasad, G.P.

O R D E R

The petitioner was initially appointed as Lecturer (Gazette) in the Government Polytechnic during the year 1983 and he was promoted to various posts, such as Head of Department and Principal and he was finally promoted as Additional Technical Director of Technical Education during October 2013.

2. While the petitioner was working as Additional Director of Technical Education, on the basis of a complaint made by one R.Vincent, a memo dated 4.1.2016 was issued by the second respondent, calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated 8.1.2016 specifically denying the allegations made against him.

Not satisfying with the explanation offered by the petitioner, the authority on the verge of his retirement had chosen to place him under suspension, alleging inquiry into grave allegation by G.O.(2D) No.41 dated 26.5.2016, followed by a consequential order in G.O.(2D) No.43 dated 31.5.2016, for not permitting him to retire on superannuation on the afternoon of 31.5.2016. Aggrieved by the act of the respondents, the petitioner has come to this Court with the present writ petition.

3. After some elaborate arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner would confine his arguments only to the extent of a direction to the respondents to commence the enquiry proceedings earlier and conclude the same within a period of three months as the impugned order was passed on 31.5.2016 on the verge of his superannuation. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is willing to participate in the proceedings and cooperate with the inquiry proceedings.

4. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would contend that the enquiry will be conducted in accordance with law.

5. In fact the impugned order of suspension was issued on 31.5.2016 especially on the verge of superannuation of the petitioner. Therefore, the first respondent is directed to commence the enquiry proceedings as early as possible and conclude the same within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is made very clear that the petitioner will cooperate with the enquiry proceedings in all respects.

6. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.17692 and 17693 of 2016 are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(J) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To

1. The Secretary, Higher Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai- 9.

2. The Director of Technical Education, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.

+1cc to Mr.L.Chandrakumar, Advocate Sr.38696 +1cc to the Government Pleader Sr.38974 W.P.No.20584 of 2016 sv[co] srg 01/08/2016