Madras High Court
Unknown vs K.Nageswaran .. 1St on 2 March, 2022
W.A(MD)No.272 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 02.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.A(MD)No.272 of 2018
and
C.M.P(MD)No.1628 of 2018
Thangavel,
District Differently Abled Welfare Officer,
Ramanathapuram,
Wrongly mentioned in the writ petition as
District Rehabilitation Welfare Officer,
Ramnad, Ramnad District.
[Cause title is accepted vide Court order
dated 07.02.2018 made in C.M.P(MD)No.
1136 of 2018] .. Appellant/
3rd Respondent
Vs.
1.K.Nageswaran .. 1st Respondent /
Petitioner
2.The District Collector,
District Collector Office,
Ramnad, Ramnad District.
3.The District Revenue officer,
D.R.O. Office,
District Collector Office,
Ramnad, Ramnad District. .. Respondents
2 and 3 / Respondents 1 and 2
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.272 of 2018
PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against
the order dated 22.12.2017 passed in W.P(MD)No.24022 of 2017 by the
learned Single Judge.
For Appellant : Mr.J.Barathan
For Respondent No.1 : Mr.R.Sundar
For Respondents 2 and 3 : Mr.J.Ashok,
Additional Government Pleader.
JUDGMENT
[Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.]
Challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated 22.12.2017
recorded on W.P(MD)No.24022 of 2017. This appeal is by the original
third respondent in the writ petition, who was joined in his personal
capacity while he was working as District Differently-Abled Welfare Officer,
who was referred as District Rehabilitation Welfare Officer by the
petitioner in the writ petition.
2. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that, on
the basis of the allegations against the present appellant, who was the
third respondent in the writ petition, by the impugned order dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.272 of 2018
22.12.2017 directions are given to take strict action against him, inter-
alia by recording prima facie satisfaction that it is a case for serious
consideration and strict action should be taken against the present
appellant.
3. We find that the present appellant is condemned unheard
before recording the order against him. Record shows that, not only no
opportunity was given to the third respondent, even notice was not issued
on the writ petition. We find that the impugned order is unsustainable on
this ground, the same therefore needs to be quashed and set aside on
that count alone.
4. We note that, though learned advocate for the appellant
and learned advocate for the writ petitioner have attempted to address
the Court on merits, making allegations against each other and prima
facie there is material to substantiate the case of the present appellant
against the petitioner (institute), it would not be proper to pass any order
against the writ petitioner in his own petition. The matter is not stretched
that far.
5. Learned Additional Government Pleader for the
respondents 2 and 3 has submitted that, on the complaint given by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.272 of 2018
third respondent – present appellant in his official capacity against the
writ petitioner, which was part of his duty, the District Collector formed a
Committee of five officers including the present appellant and some
substance was found regarding irregularities committed by the writ
petitioner's institute. On being asked about the stand of the State, it is
submitted that the State supports the case of the appellant.
6. Learned advocate for the writ petitioner has made serious
grievance that misconduct was committed by the present appellant, while
he visited the institute and no interference be made by this Court.
7. During the course of hearing, grievance was also made by
the appellant about the locus of the writ petitioner, saying that though he
had projected himself to be the trustee of the institute, according to him
he was not the office bearer at all. According to us, for the reasons
recorded above, the same would not change the complexion of the matter.
8. It is noticed that, the order under challenge was already
stayed by this Court vide order dated 21.02.2018 recorded by the Division
Bench of this Court [Coram: Justice Mr.M.Sathyanarayanan and Justice
Mrs.R.Hemalatha].
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.272 of 2018
9. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is allowed and
the impugned Judgment and order is quashed and set aside. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[P.U., J] [K.R., J]
02.03.2022
Index : No
smn/48
To
1.The District Collector,
District Collector Office,
Ramnad, Ramnad District.
2.The District Revenue officer,
D.R.O. Office,
District Collector Office,
Ramnad, Ramnad District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.272 of 2018
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
smn
W.A(MD)No.272 of 2018
02.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
