R.Manikandan v. The Revisionary Authority
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G. ARUL MURUGAN Writ Petition No. 19819 of 2024 R. Manikandan .. Petitioner Vs.
1. The Revisionary Authority, Hon'ble Registrar General, High Court of Judicature, High Court Building's, Madras 600 104.
2. The Hon'ble Principal District Judge, Principal District Court, Salem 636 007.
3. The I Additional Sub Ordinate Judge, Salem.
4. The Hon'ble Subordinate Judge, Subordinate Judge Court, Sankari Taluk & Post, Salem District, Pin Code - 637 301.
... Respondents 1/10
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to first respondent dated 02.02.2024 in ROC No.121627/2023/C1 and ROC No.46140/2022/C1 dated 19.09.2023 by confirming the order of 2nd respondent in ROC No.9747/2020 dated 17.03.2022 and quash the same and consequentially issue direction directing the 2nd respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with all service benefits in accordance with law.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Marudhachalamurthy For Respondents : Mr. S.Arjun Suresh ********
ORDER
(Order of the Court was delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.) We do not see any reason to interfere with the proceedings of the learned District Judge.
2. The petitioner, who was a compassionate appointee, joined the services in the Judiciary on 27.05.2015. He was transferred to Sankari with 2/10
effect from 21.06.2018. In July 2018, he applied for unearned leave on medical certificate for 30 days. On a reference to the Medical Board, it was found that the treatment required only 15 days leave. So 15 days leave was granted and the remaining 15 days was treated as leave on loss of pay. However, the petitioner did not join even on 31.07.2018, he stayed at home from 01.08.2018 to 03.03.2020 and he was satisfied sending leave applications which were rejected consistently. Because of his long absence, the work in the Court was severely affected.
3. Charges were framed against the petitioner and the disciplinary enquiry was conducted, the petitioner did not appear before the Enquiry Officer. So the Enquiry Officer found that he is guilty of the charges on the evidence that was available which are basically records which demonstrated that the petitioner has been content with sending leave applications and not bothering to join duty even when the leave applications were rejected. The total number of days, the petitioner were absent works out to 603. Taking note of his habitual absenteeism, the District Judge had imposed the punishment of removal from service. Though, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the removal from service is bad, he is unable 3/10
to support his contention with any material.
4. The following Tabular Column would show the recklessness of the petitioner in attending duty.
4/10
5/10
6/10
7/10
From the Tabular Column, it could be seen that despite several warnings and rejection of several leave applications, the petitioner has not bothered to return the duty. He has also not bothered to appear before the Enquiry Officer.
5. We therefore do not see any reason to interfere with the punishment imposed, the Writ Petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. There shall no order as to costs.
(R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.) (G. ARUL MURUGAN, J.) 27.03.2025 jv Index: Yes/No Speaking order/Non Speaking order 8/10
To
1. The Revisionary Authority, Hon'ble Registrar General, High Court of Judicature, High Court Building's, Madras 600 104.
2. The Hon'ble Principal District Judge, Principal District Court, Salem 636 007.
3. The I Additional Sub Ordinate Judge, Salem.
4. The Hon'ble Subordinate Judge, Subordinate Judge Court, Sankari Taluk & Post, Salem District, Pin Code - 637 301.
9/10
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and G. ARUL MURUGAN, J.
(jv) Writ Petition No.19819 of 2024 27.03.2025 1/2 10/10