Rajesh Kumar.M v. The Commissioner
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28.01.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR W.P.(MD)No.2260 of 2024 and W.M.P.(MD).Nos.2269 & 2270 of 2024 M.Rajesh Kumar ... Petitioner Vs
1. The Commissioner, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Panagal Building, Chennai-600 0015.
2. The District Collector, Dindigul, Dindigul District.
3. The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat), Panchayat Union, Reddiyar Chatram, Dindigul District.
4. The President/Executive Officer, Dharumathupatti Panchayat, Reddiarchatram Panchayat Union, Dindigul District.
5. A. Innasi.
...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.9358/2022/Vu.Va.9 dated 22.01.2024 and quash the same. 1/4
For Petitioner : Mr.H.Mohammed Imran for M/s.Ajmal Associates For Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Mr.A.Baskaran Additional Government Pleader For Respondent No.3 : Mr.S.Kameeswaran Government Advocate For Respondent No.4 : Mr.V.Panneer Selvam For Respondent No.5 : Mr.Mayilvahana Rajendran
ORDER
The instant writ petition has been filed by a ward member of Village Panchayat, challenging the order passed by the second respondent, wherein, the fifth respondent has been reinstated in service after revoking the order of suspension.
2. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, the fifth respondent ought not to have been reinstated in the same village Panchayath in view of various allegations as against him.
3. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos.1 & 2 on instructions, submits that the fifth respondent was subjected to departmental enquiry and final orders have been passed on 27.08.2024, wherein, a punishment of stoppage of increment for a period six 2/4
months has been imposed. Therefore, the order of suspension has been revoked and the fifth respondent has been reinstated in the same village Panchayat.
4. Considering the fact that the petitioner's tenure has got expired on 05.01.2025, and also considering the fact that the fifth respondent has been reinstated in service after completion of departmental proceedings, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the order of reinstatement of the fifth respondent. However, in case, if any other allegations are made out as against the fifth respondent, it is open to the writ petitioner to submit proper application before the concerned District Collector.
5. With the above said observations, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 28.01.2025 (2/2) NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No gvn 3/4
R.VIJAYAKUMAR , J.
gvn To
1. The Commissioner, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Panagal Building, Chennai-600 0015.
2. The District Collector, Dindigul, Dindigul District.
3. The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat), Panchayat Union, Reddiyar Chatram, Dindigul District.
4. The President/Executive Officer, Dharumathupatti Panchayat, Reddiarchatram Panchayat Union, Dindigul District.
W.P.(MD)No.2260 of 2024 28.01.2025 (2/2) 4/4