Madras High Court
The Director Of Public Health And ... vs N.Ponnusamy on 6 September, 2022
W.A.No.939 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.5527 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.No.939 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.5527 of 2021
1.The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine,
D.M.S. Compound,
Chennai-6.
2.The Deputy Director of Health Services,
Thiruchirapalli. .. Appellants
Vs.
N.Ponnusamy .. Respondent
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the
order dated 30.07.2018 made in W.P.No.22165 of 2008.
For Appellants : Mrs.E.Renganayaki,
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.R.Prem Narayan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.939 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.5527 of 2021
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY,J.)
1. Challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated
30.07.2018 recorded on W.P.No.22165 of 2008. This appeal is by
the respondents in the writ petition – State Authorities.
2. Mrs.E.Renganayaki, learned Additional Government
Pleader for the appellants - State Authorities submitted that, the
G.O. No.61 dated 30.06.2006 indicate that, for the alleged
irregularities of the year 1985, proceedings were instituted in the
year 2009 and ultimately the same culminated in withholding of
increment for one year, without cumulative effect and on the crucial
date of promotion, the punishment can be said to be in force and
therefore non-inclusion of the name of the writ petitioner is just and
proper and the learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered
with the same. It is submitted that this appeal be entertained.
3. On the other hand, learned advocate for the writ petitioner
has submitted that, learned Single Judge has, on the basis of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.939 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.5527 of 2021
material on record, arrived at the conclusion that, the exclusion of
the writ petitioner from the promotion panel of the year 2007 –
2008 was illegal and arbitrary and for the reasons recorded in the
order, no interference be made by this Court. It is submitted that
this appeal be dismissed.
4. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties
and having considered the material on record, this Court finds that
learned Single Judge has, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India granted relief to the writ petitioner
considering the fact that, even if what was alleged against the writ
petitioner was right, the same had happened in the year 1985 and
going by the case of the State Authorities also it was the case of
withholding of one increment without cumulative effect. Giving
effect to that punishment order in the year 2007 - 2008 has the
effect beyond what was conceived by the Disciplinary Authority and
therefore the exercise of discretion by learned Single Judge, in the
facts of this case, can not be said to be an error, much less any
error apparent on face of record, which may call for any
interference in this intra Court appeal. This appeal therefore needs
to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.939 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.5527 of 2021
5. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is
dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition would not
survive.
(P.U.J.) (D.B.C.J.)
06.09.2022
raa/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.939 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.5527 of 2021
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
raa
W.A.No.939 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.5527 of 2021
06.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
