The Secretary vs The Commissioner
2023 Latest Caselaw 59 Mad

                                                                                  W.A.No.388 of 2020

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                   DATED : 02.01.2023

                                                        CORAM

                      THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
                                        and
                THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

                                                 W.A.No.388 of 2020
                                              and CMP.No.6358 of 2020

                The Secretary,
                Thirupathur Sarvodaya Sangam,
                No.87, Gandhi Road,
                Tirupathur, Vellore District.                                       ...appellant


                                                          Vs.

                1. The Commissioner,
                  Khadhi Village Industries Commission, KVIC,
                  No.126, Avai Shanmugam Salai,
                  Gopalapuram,
                  Chennai 600 086.
                2. Theerthagiri                                                  ...respondents

                          Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
                order dated 04.11.2019 in WP.No.21189 of 2019 passed by the Single Judge
                of this Court.

                                   For appellant      : Mr.T.Dharani

                                   For respondents    : Served - No appearance



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                Page No.1/4
                                                                                   W.A.No.388 of 2020

                                                      JUDGMENT

(The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J)

The appellant is aggrieved by the observations of the Writ Court while

disposing of the Writ Petition filed by the second respondent to the effect

that the second respondent has been reinstated in service.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that it was not

the second respondent, who was reinstated in service, but another employee

who had obtained stay of the order of the suspension. He further submitted

that the second respondent has been removed from service after completion

of the enquiry by an order dated 20.10.2020. Hence, nothing survives in this

appeal.

3. In view of the above submission, this appeal is disposed of as

having become infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected

miscellaneous petition is closed.

                                                                         (R.S.M.J.,) (S.S.K.J.,)
                                                                               02.01.2023
                Index       : Yes / No
                Speaking order: Yes/No
                pvs

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.2/4 W.A.No.388 of 2020

To The Commissioner, Khadhi Village Industries Commission, KVIC, No.126, Avai Shanmugam Salai, Gopalapuram, Chennai 600 086.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.3/4 W.A.No.388 of 2020

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

and SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.

pvs

W.A.No.388 of 2020

02.01.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.4/4