You may also like...
-
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU W.P. No. 28531 of 2022 and W.M.P. No. 27845 of 2022 Venkatesh Sowrirajan -vs- 1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary Department of Tamil Development Culture Religious Endowments & Information Secretariat, Fort St. George Chennai – 600
by Sekar Reporter · Published January 3, 2023
-
Sasikala flag பயன்படுத்தலாமா சட்டநிபுணர் கருத்து
by Sekar Reporter · Published February 5, 2021
-
Therefore, this Court is of the view that on the date of crucial date, no charges were pending against the petitioner. Merely on the basis of the subsequent enquiry, when the first enquiry did not point out any allegations against the petitioner and the second enquiry has been Ordered later, the same will not be a bar to promotion, since crucial date is relevant for promotion. All the circumstances available in this case makes it cleat that to satisfy somebody such a charge memo has been issued with bald allegations without applying the provisions of Rule 17B Tamil Nadu Civil Services [Discipline and Appeal] Rules that the charge should be reduced in the form of definite charges, which is lacking in this case. Hence, the charge is a result of some malafide action and it cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned Order passed by the first respondent dated 18.02.2023 is set aside. The petitioner should be promoted as per the seniority and if there is any charge against the petitioner, the respondents can proceed against the petitioner as per law. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. 26.07.2023 Index:Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No vrc To, The District of Medical Education [FAC], Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010. N.SATHISH KUMAR, J. vrc WP.No.10484 of 2023 26.07.2023. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Bala For Respondents : Mr.J.Ravindran, AAG Asst. by Mr.K.Tippu Sulthan Government Advocate – R1 Mr.V.Baskaran – R2
by Sekar Reporter · Published August 9, 2023