IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11/09/2003
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.BALASUBRAMANIAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.P.SIVASUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.10608 of 2003 and W.P.No.14864 of 2003
and
WPMP.Nos.13417 & 18610 of 2003
Ch.Hari ... Petitioner in
both Wps.
-Vs-
1. The Senior Commandant
(Disciplinary Authority)
CISF Unit,
Chennai Port Trust,
Chennai 600 001.
2. The Assistant Commandant,
(The Inquiry Officer),
CISF Unit,
Chennai Port Trust,
Chennai 600 001.
3. The Inspector,
CISF Unit,
Chennai Port Trust,
Chennai 600 001. ... Respondents in
both Wps.
Writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for the issue of a writ of Certiorari as stated therein.
In both petitions:
For petitioner : Mr.M.Jaichandran
For respondents : Mr.S.M.Deenadayalan, ACGSC
:ORDER
The writ petition in W.P.No.10608 of 2003 is filed challenging
the Office Memo dated 13.3.2003 issued by the disciplinary authority directing
the petitioner herein to submit his representation to the enquiry report.
This Court admitted the writ petition on 7.4.2003. By order dated 7.4.2003,
this Court granted restricted interim stay of the operation of the impugned
order with the liberty granted to the petitioner to submit his explanation to
the show-cause notice. In the same order, this Court also directed the
respondents not to pass any order until further orders. Subsequently, the
respondents, on the basis of the orders of this Court, proceeded with the
enquiry and issued another Office Memorandum dated 22.4.2003 directing the
petitioner to submit his representation to the enquiry report against which
the petitioner has filed the writ petition in W.P.No.14864 of 2003. The writ
petition was also admitted and an interim order of stay was also passed.
2. During the pendency of both the writ petitions, it is
stated by Mr.S.M.Deenadayalan, learned Additional Central Government Standing
counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has been dismissed from
service with effect from 17.6.2003 in another departmental enquiry. Learned
counsel for the respondents also produced before us the copy of the order of
dismissal dated 16.6.2003. we find that the petitioner has been dismissed
from service on a charge which is totally unrelated to the charge which is
subject matter of both the writ petitions.
3. Mr.M.Jayachandran, learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that he is not clear whether the petitioner has challenged the order
of dismissal dated 16.6.2003 by preferring an appeal. However, the fact
remains that the petitioner has been dismissed from service by order dated
16.6.2003, and no order has been produced by the petitioner to show that the
order of dismissal has been set aside or modified by any higher authority.
Since the petitioner has been dismissed from service on a charge which is
totally unrelated to the charge which is subject matter of both the writ
petitions, we are of the view that the consideration of the writ petitions on
merits has become purely academic in nature. Accordingly, we close both the
writ petitions, however, with the liberty granted to the petitioner to
approach this Court to revive both the writ petitions, if the order of
dismissal dated 16.6.2003 is set aside or modified by any forum.
4. With the above liberty granted to the petitioner, both the
writ petitions are closed. No costs. Connected W.P.M.Ps. are also closed.
Index: Yes
Website: Yes
na.
To
1. The Senior Commandant
(Disciplinary Authority)
CISF Unit,
Chennai Port Trust,
Chennai 600 001.
2. The Assistant Commandant,
(The Inquiry Officer),
CISF Unit,
Chennai Port Trust,
Chennai 600 001.
3. The Inspector,
CISF Unit,
Chennai Port Trust,
Chennai 600 001.