Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 175 (MAD)

M. Agaramuthu v. Union of India

2014-01-27

N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, P.DEVADASS

body2014
JUDGMENT N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J. Mr. V. Parivallal, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel takes notice for respondents 1 and 2. 2. This writ Petition is filed to quash the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal made in O.A.No.32 of 2013, dated 3.9.2013, wherein the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the second respondent to reinstate him in service and to continue the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him and also to enhance the ex-gratia payment to the petitioner. 3. From the perusal of the order, it is seen that on 3.4.2012, the petitioner was placed under put-off duty by the second respondent on the ground that he has not paid the old age pension (OAP) money order to one Muniammal, the beneficiary and proceeding was initiated against him. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that as per the circular/instruction issued by the Director General, dated 26.7.1990, the put-off duty/suspension shall not exceed 45 days and time table the Tribunal, noticing the said circular as only a circular not having any statutory force, dismissed the original application, and held that judicial review in regard to the suspension order/put-off duty is very minimal. The said order is challenged in this writ petition. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that even though the petitioner was put-off from duty on 3.4.2012, no charge memo is issued and the disciplinary proceedings is also not commenced for over 20 months. 6. The learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submits that immediate steps will be taken to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings and the department will take steps to dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible. 7. In view of the said submission, the writ petition is dismissed, by clarifying the position that the observation made by the Tribunal shall not stand in the way of the petitioner in contesting the disciplinary proceedings to be initiated. Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to proceed further in the matter by framing charge memo, if any, and proceed in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.