High Court Madras High Court

The Commissioner vs N.Balasubramanian on 5 February, 2002

Madras High Court
The Commissioner vs N.Balasubramanian on 5 February, 2002
       

  

  

 
 
                    In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

                               Dated : 05.02.2002

                                    Coram :

                   The Honourable Mr.Justice R.Jayasimha Babu
                                      and
                The Honourable Mr.Justice F.M.Ibrahim Kalifulla

                      Writ Petition No.13243 of 2001


        The Commissioner,
        Karambakudi Panchayat Union,
        Karambakudi,
        Pudukottai District.                                    Petitioner

                                        vs.
        1.  N.Balasubramanian,
        4/14-H Main Road,
        Malaiyur,
        Alangudi Taluk,
        Pudukottai District, 622 306.

        2.  The Registrar,
        Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal,
        Chennai 104.
                                                                Respondents

                Writ Petition under Article 226  of  the  Constitution  of
        India for the issue of writ of certiorari and as stated within.

                For Petitioner          :  Mr.C.Kalaichelvan, for
                                           Mr.N.S.Mukundan

                For Respondent 1        :  No appearance








:                                        ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by F.M.Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.)

This is a case of one other example of a case
where the Tribunal totally failed to apply its mind while granting
an interim order. In this case the Tribunal has granted stay of
the order of suspension issued to the first respondent dated
17.08.2000 for his negligent conduct as a noon meal organizer in
having allowed a lizard to get mixed up with the food to be
supplied to the children studying in the panchayat school, as a
result of which the children were stated to have suffered food
poisoning and got admitted in the hospital. Unfortunately,
without realising the gravity of the misconduct committed by the
first respondent, which forced the petitioner to place him under
suspension, the second respondent Tribunal has granted the order
of stay while entertaining the O.A. Filed before it by the first
respondent.

2. In such circumstances, we, with a heavy heart, while
expressing our anguish over the manner in which the Tribunal has
passed the order of stay, hasten to set aside the order of the
Tribunal.

3. The writ petition is allowed. WMP.No.19440 of 2001 is
closed.

(R.J.B.,J) (F.M.I.K.,J.)
05.02.2002