Madras High Court
The Secretary To Government vs Thiru.S.Subramanian (Under ... on 28 November, 2022
Rev. Aplc(MD)No.17 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 28.11.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
REV. APLC(MD)No.17 OF 2021
and
C.M.P(MD)No.2420 of 2021
1.The Secretary to Government,
Commercial Taxes and Registration Department,
Secertariat, Chennai – 9.
2.The Inspector General of Registration,
No.100, Santhome High Road,
Chennai – 28.
3.The Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings,
Trichirapalli,
Represented by its Commissioner. ... Petitioners/Respondents
Vs.
Thiru.S.Subramanian (under Suspension),
Sub-Registrar (Guideline)
Pattukottai,
Thanjavur District. ... Contemnor/Respondent
Page 1 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev. Aplc(MD)No.17 of 2021
\PRAYER: Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with
Section 114 of C.P.C., to review the order dated 03.08.2017 made in
W.A(MD)No.1040 of 2012.
For petitioners : Mr.D.Sasikumar,
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan,
Senior Counsel
ORDER
********
(Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH, J.)
This Review Application has been filed to review the order, dated
03.08.2017 made in W.A(MD)No.1040 of 2012.
2. When the writ petitioner was placed under suspension on
25.11.2019 in connection with the disciplinary proceedings initiated, he
had filed a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.1040 of 2012, challenging the
charge memo, dated 12.05.2010, together with the order of suspension
dated 25.11.2009 and the consequential order not permitting him to retire
from service on superannuation, dated 27.11.2009. The writ petition came
to be dismissed on 10.09.2012.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev. Aplc(MD)No.17 of 2021
3. As against which, the writ petitioner had preferred an appeal in
W.A(MD)No.1040 of 2012. Vide judgment, dated 03.08.2017, the writ
appeal was allowed. Consequently, the charge memo as well as the
suspension order and the order permitting the petitioner to retire from
service were quashed. Thereafter, since the retirement benefits were not
disbursed to the petitioner herein, he had filed a contempt petition in
Cont.P(MD)No.1311 of 2018. During the pendency of the contempt
petition, the present review application has been filed by the State.
4. On a perusal of the grounds raised in the review application, it is
seen that apart from placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court reported in the case of Union of India vs. Kunisetty
Satyanarayana [(2006) 12 SCC 28], for the purpose of stating that the
Courts can interfere with the charge memo and the show-cause notice on
certain restricted grounds, no other ground has been raised in the review
application.
5. It is needless to point out that the review application can be
preferred only to set right the error that may be apparent on the face of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev. Aplc(MD)No.17 of 2021
record. The ground which the petitioner has now taken, seems to be
re-appraisal of the earlier grounds raised in the Writ Appeal, which is
impermissible. It is not in dispute that the order passed in the writ appeal
has become final. While that being so, we do not find any merit in the
present review application. Accordingly, the review application stands
dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
[M.S.R.,J.] & [G.R.S.,J.]
28.11.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
pm
To:
1.The Secretary to Government,
Commercial Taxes and Registration Department,
Secertariat, Chennai – 9.
2.The Inspector General of Registration,
No.100, Santhome High Road,
Chennai – 28.
3.The Commissioner ,
Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings,
Trichirapalli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev. Aplc(MD)No.17 of 2021
M.S.RAMESH, J.
AND
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
pm
ORDER MADE IN
Rev.Aplc(MD)No.17 of 2021
28.11.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
