1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.03.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN W.P.(MD)No.1249 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 M.Sathiyavasan ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin. 2.The Block Development Officer, (Village Panchayat), Tuticorin Panchayat Union, Tuticorin. 3.The President, Kattalangulam Panchayat, Sayarpuram, Tuticorin District. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to consider the statutory revision petition filed by the petitioner dated 27.05.2009 and to pass final orders in accordance with law and on merits within the stipulated time. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Chellapandian for Mr.Veera Kathiravan For Respondents : Mr.D.Sasikumar, G.A. O R D E R By consent, the Writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. 2.Heard Mr.M.Chellapandian for Mr.Veera Kathiravan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.D.Sasikumar, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 3.The petitioner has come out with a limited prayer to direct the 1st respondent to consider the statutory revision filed by the petitioner on 27.05.2009 and to pass orders in accordance with law and on merits within the stipulated time. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4.It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Panchayat Clerk in the 3rd respondent/Panchayat and he was placed under suspension on 03.11.2003 for certain allegations. Thereafter, he was reinstated into service by revoking the suspension order in the year 2005. The petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings by the 3rd respondent alleging that there was a misuse of public funds and without following the procedure, the 3rd respondent passed an order of dismissal from service on 09.09.2008. Against which, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the 2nd respondent on 01.12.2008 and the said Appellate Authority passed a non-speaking order confirming the order of the 3rd respondent. Therefore, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the 1st respondent on 27.05.2009 and thereafter, the 1st respondent conducted an enquiry on 20.10.2009. Even though the said enquiry was over, the 1st respondent has not passed any final orders. Hence, the petitioner filed the present Writ petition for the relief stated supra. 5.The learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2 submits that it is not a revision, but, it is only a further appeal to the 1st respondent/District Collector and therefore, he requests reasonable time may be granted to the 1st respondent to consider the said appeal. 6.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the limited relief sought for in this Writ petition, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, the 1st respondent is directed to consider and pass orders on the statutory revision/appeal filed by the petitioner dated 27.05.2009 in accordance with law and on merits, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(P&A) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin. 2.The Block Development Officer, (Village Panchayat), Tuticorin Panchayat Union, Tuticorin. 3.The President, Kattalangulam Panchayat, Sayarpuram, Tuticorin District. +One Cc to Mr.Veerakathiravan, Advocate, SR.No11532 nbj rl/5c – 17.3.2011 W.P(MD)No.1249 of 2011 04.03.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/