Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

J.Mani vs The Union Of India on 23 December, 2020

Author: M.Sathyanarayanan

Bench: M.Sathyanarayanan

                                                                                      WP.No.19749/2020

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED 23.12.2020

                                                       CORAM

                          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN

                                                        AND

                                   THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA

                                       WP.No.19749/2020 & WMP.No.24392/2020

                     J.Mani                                                      ..     Petitioner

                                                       Versus

                     1.The Union of India
                       rep.by the Joint Director,
                       National Institute of Fashion
                       Technology, NIFT Campus
                       Rajiv Gandhi Salai,
                       Taramani, Chennai 600113.

                     2.The Registrar
                       Central Administrative Tribunal
                       Chennai Bench, Chennai 600 104.                           .. Respondents

                     Prayer:-      Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
                     India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling
                     for the entire records pertaining to the order made in OA.No.491 of 2020
                     dated 12.11.2020 on the file of the Registrar, Central Administrative
                     Tribunal, Chennai Bench, the 2nd respondent herein and quash the same
                     as highly illegal arbitrary, unreasonable, being violative of rules and
                     principles of natural justice and thereby direct the 1st respondent herein to
                     reinstate the petitioner into service.


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                          1
                                                                                    WP.No.19749/2020

                                   For Petitioner      :         Mr.Suresh for Mr.G.Dharoga
                                   For R1              :         Mr.R.Sankaranarayanan
                                                                 Assistant Solicitor General


                                                           ORDER

[Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.

through Video Conferencing] (1)By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal and is disposed of by this order.

(2)Mr.R.Sankaranarayanan, learned Assistant Solicitor General accepts notice on behalf of the 1st respondent.

(3)The Director of National Institute of Fashion Technology [NIFT], Chennai-113, has lodged a complaint to the Chairperson of ICC, dated 05.10.2020 alleging harassment and also misbehaviour and intruding into the private affairs by the petitioner who is employed as a driver and ICC is yet to conclude the proceedings and however, the Fact Finding Committee has concluded the local enquiry. (4)The petitioner, in contemplation of the same, has been suspended vide order dated 05.10.2020 and by making a challenge to the same, filed OA.No.491/2020 and the Tribunal, vide impugned order dated 12.11.2020, has dismissed the said Original Application and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 2 WP.No.19749/2020 challenging the said order, the present writ petition came to be filed by the petitioner.

(5)The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the Fact Finding Committee has concluded the enquiry, there is no necessity to keep the petitioner under suspension for the reason that there is a likelihood of tampering of evidence etc. (6)This Court heard the submissions of Mr.R.Sankaranarayanan, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the 1st respondent and also perused the materials placed before it. (7)The petitioner did not challenge the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent in placing him under suspension and the only ground urged is that the Fact Finding Committee has concluded the enquiry and there is no necessity to keep the petitioner under suspension. The Tribunal, has taken note of the Rule position, i.e., Rule 10[1] of the Central Civil Services [Classification, Control and Appeal] Rules, 1965 and found that the suspension order cannot be reviewed after ninety days and whereas, only thirty six days had elapsed. In the considered opinion of the Court, no tenable grounds have been raised in the present writ petition.

(8)It is also a well settled position of law that suspension is also a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 3 WP.No.19749/2020 prerogative of the employer and in the absence of any tenable and legal challenge, this Court is unable to interfere with the order passed by the 2nd respondent/Tribunal.

(9)In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed confirming the order passed by the 2nd respondent in OA.No.491/2020 dated 12.11.2020. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

                                                                            [MSNJ]      [RHJ]
                                                                               23.12.2020
                     AP
                     Internet:Yes

                     To

1.The Joint Director, Union of India, National Institute of Fashion Technology, NIFT Campus Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Taramani, Chennai 600113.

2.The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal Chennai Bench, Chennai 600 104.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 4 WP.No.19749/2020 M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J., AND R.HEMALATHA, J., AP WP.No.19749/2020 23.12.2020 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 5