Posted On by &filed under High Court, Madras High Court.


Madras High Court
Tmt.R.Meena Rajasekaran vs Inspector General Of … on 10 March, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 10/03/2010

CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI

W.P.(MD).No.2995 of 2010
and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2010

Tmt.R.Meena Rajasekaran			... Petitioner
			
Vs.

1.Inspector General of Registration,
  Inspector General of Registration Office,
  Santhome High Road,
  Chennai.

2.The Deputy Inspector of Registration,
  Cantonment,
  Trichy.	 				... Respondents

PRAYER

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pursuant to the
order passed by the second respondent in Proc.No.865/JgJj/09, dated 01.03.2010
and quash the same.

!For Petitioner		... Mr.M.Subash Babu
^For Respondents	... Mr.V.Rajasekaran
			    Special Government Pleader
				
*****
:ORDER

**********

Mr.V.Rajasekaran, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice on
behalf of the respondents. By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for final
disposal at the stage of admission itself.

2. The writ petitioner challenges the impugned memo issued by the
second respondent dated 01.03.2010, by which the second respondent has directed
the petitioner to appear for an enquiry in respect of a disciplinary proceeding
initiated against her on 05.03.2010 at 11.30 a.m. The said order itself has been
signed by the second respondent only on 05.03.2010 and it is stated that the
petitioner has received the same only on 06.03.2010. Therefore, in pursuant to
the notice, the petitioner was unable to appear before the second respondent for
enquiry, which was scheduled to be held on 05.03.2010.

3. The further case of the petitioner is that the second respondent
has issued the suspension order against the petitioner earlier and that order
came to be set aside by this Court and against the said order of the learned
Single Judge, the department has filed a writ appeal, in which, the second
respondent is also one of the appellants and, therefore, according to the
petitioner, there is a mala fide, which is attributable against her, if the
second respondent conducts enquiry against the petitioner. It is seen that the
petitioner has also made a representation to the first respondent on 08.02.2010,
explaining the above said fact. In such circumstances, the present writ petition
is filed challenging the impugned memo issued by the second respondent dated
01.03.2010.

4. On the face of it, when the second respondent has called the
petitioner to appear for enquiry on 05.03.2010 and the second respondent has
chosen to sign it only on 05.03.2010 and it was received by the petitioner only
on 06.03.2010, necessarily the petitioner cannot be expected to participate in
the enquiry held on 05.03.2010.

5. In such view of the matter, the impugned order stands set aside
with a direction against the second respondent to give fresh notice of enquiry
to the petitioner and proceed in accordance with law. In the meantime, it is
seen that the petitioner has made certain allegations against the second
respondent and a complaint has also been made to the first respondent against
the second respondent on 08.02.2010. Therefore, I am of the considered view that
in the meantime, the first respondent should be directed to consider the said
representation of the petitioner dated 08.02.2010 and pass appropriate orders on
merits and in accordance with law.

6. In such view of the mater, while setting aside the impugned
order, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction against the first
respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 08.02.2010 and
pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of
four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till the first
respondent passes such an order, the second respondent shall not proceed to
issue fresh notice of enquiry and after the first respondent passes appropriate
orders, it is for the second respondent to proceed against the petitioner in
accordance with law. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is
closed. No costs.

SML

To

1.The Inspector General of Registration,
Inspector General of Registration Office,
Santhome High Road,
Chennai.

2.The Deputy Inspector of Registration,
Cantonment,
Trichy.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

107 queries in 0.193 seconds.