← Library
Madras High CourtWP/22310/2019disposed of

R.Muthumeenatchi v. The Commissioner Of Municipal Administration,

2019-10-01Honourable Mr Justice M.Dhandapani3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 01.10.2019

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P.No.22310 of 2019 and W.M.P.No.21610 of 2019 R.Muthumeenatchi ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

2.The Commisssioner, Myladuthurai Municipality, Myladuthurai.

...Respondents

Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records connected with the proceedings issued in Na.Ka.No.3039/2019/C1 dated 16.07.2019 passed by the second respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service.

For Petitioner : M/s.S.Ilamvaludhi For Respondents : Mr.R.S.Selvam Government Advocate for R1 Mr.P.Srinivas for R2

O R D E R

Writ Petition is filed for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records connected with the proceedings issued in Na.Ka.No.3039/2019/C1 dated 16.07.2019 passed by the second respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for R1 and the learned counsel appearing for R2.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is working as Assistant in the Myladuthurai Municipality from 2014 onwards. The petitioner is sincere in her duty. Whileso, the respondent placed the petitioner under suspension on 16.07.2019 that the petitioner has not been sincere in her work and caused various losses to the Municipality. Challenging the said suspension order, the present writ petition is filed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the suspension order, subsequent to the impugned order, a charge memo was issued to the petitioner and the disciplinary proceedings were initiated and the petitioner also submitted his explanation. He would further submit that it would suffice if a direction is issued to the respondent to complete the disciplinary proceedings within a reasonable time as fixed by this Court.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent accede to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that if any such representation was received by the 2nd respondent, the same will be considered on merits and in accordance with law.

6. Considering the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no need to interfere with the suspension order. However, I am inclined to issue a direction to the 2nd respondent to complete the disciplinary proceedings within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, the respondent has to consider his request for revocation of the suspension order.

7.With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Cs) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar uma

To 1.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

2.The Commisssioner, Myladuthurai Municipality, Myladuthurai.

+1cc to M/s.S.Ilamvaludhi , Advocate SR.No. 84960 +1 cc to Government Pleader Sr.No. 84581 W.P.No.22310 of 2019 and WMP No.21610 of 2019 A.SK(05/11/2019)